Project future trend of a stock with high positive autocorrelation
Auto-correlation is a statistical concept for measuring repeating patterns in series.  In stocks it is of particular interest as if future prices can be reliably guessed from past prices a lot of money could be made.   Note, even in cases where auto-correlations are high and persistent (near 1) there is still some possibility that the next time period would be down even if the previous period was up.  Now the important part here is that high and persistent auto-correlation also means once the price falls the next period the price is also more likely to fall! Once one period was down the next period is more likely to be down so the price does not need to go to infinity.  Instead, it generally would display up and down trends. Now, the key word above for investing is persistence. For stocks, auto-correlations are, at best, weakly persistent at reasonable time scales.  So, even if a stock was highly auto-correlated during a previous period it is tough to make consistent money off of trading on these past trending patterns.  This does not mean some people don't try...
"What are you trying to do Exactly?  What is a covariance ""profile""? (Cov Matrix)?   Also lose the jargon.  From my understanding you want the same covariance in the portfolio, however it doesn't work like that as covariance is an observed matrix. It's hard enough to target variance in a portfolio (see GMV) and to target covariance would be even more difficult. You can attempt to use the weights you have right now in terms of exposures, but LEAPS may give you unwanted theta.   Are you long short or long only? if you're long only the interplay between the positions is rather irrelevent, as right now all that matters are the weights." Still working on exact answer to question....for now: (BONUS) Here is how to pull a graphical chart with the required data: Therefore: As r14 = the indicator for RSI.  The above pull would pull Google,   6months, line chart, linear, large, with a 50 day moving average, a   200 day exponential moving average, volume, and followed up with RSI. Reference Link:  Finance Yahoo! API's "I went to Morningstar's ""Performance"" page for FUSEX (Fideltiy's S&P 500 index fund) and used the ""compare"" tool to compare it with FOSFX and FWWFX, as well as FEMKX (Fidelity Emerging Markets fund).  According to the data there, FOSFX outperformed FUSEX in 2012, FEMKX outperformed FUSED in 2010, and FWWFX outperformed FUSEX in both 2010 and 2012.  When looking at 10- and 15-year trailing returns, both FEMKX and FWWFX outperformed FUSEX. What does this mean?  It means it matters what time period you're looking at.  US stocks have been on an almost unbroken increase since early 2009.  It's not surprising that if you look at recent returns, international markets will not stack up well.  If you go back further, though, you can find periods where international funds outperformed the US; and even within recent years, there have been individual years where international funds won. As for correlation, I guess it depends what you mean by ""low"".  According to this calculator, for instance, FOSFX and FUSEX had a correlation of about 0.84 over the last 15 years.  That may seem high, but it's still lower than, say, the 0.91 correlation between FUSEX and FSLCX (Fideltiy Small Cap).  It's difficult to find truly low correlations among equity funds, since the interconnectedness of the global economy means that bull and bear markets tend to spread from one country to another.  To get lower correlations you need to look at different asset classes (e.g., bonds). So the answer is basically that some of the funds you were already looking at may be the ones you were looking for.  The trick is that no category will outperform any other over all periods.  That's exactly what volatility means --- it means the same category that overperforms in some periods will underperform in others.  If international funds always outperformed, no one would ever buy US funds.  Ultimately, if you're trying to decide on investments for yourself, you need to take all this information into account and combine it with your own personal preferences, risk tolerance, etc. Anecdotally, I recently did some simulation-based analyses of Vanguard funds using data from the past 15 years.  Over this period, Vanguard's emerging markets fund (VEIEX) comes out far ahead of US funds, and is also the least-correlated with the S&P 500.  But, again, this analysis is based only on a particular slice of time." "I'll give the TLDR answer. 1) You can't forecast the price direction. If you get it right you got lucky. If you think you get it right consistently you are either a statistical anomaly or a victim of confirmation bias. Countless academic studies show that you can not do this. 2) You reduce volatility and, importantly, left-tail risk by going to an index tracking ETF or mutual fund. That is, Probability(Gigantic Loss) is MUCH lower in an index tracker. What's the trade off? The good thing is there is NO tradeoff. Your expected return does not go down in the same way the risk goes down! 3) Since point (1) is true, you are wasting time analysing companies. This has the opportunity cost of not earning $ from doing paid work, which can be thought of as a negative return. ""With all the successful investors (including myself on a not-infrequent basis) going for individual companies directly"" Actually, academic studies show that individual investors are the worst performers of all investors in the stock market." Look at their dividend history.  The chart there is simply reporting the most recent dividend (or a recent time period, in any event).  GF for example: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/gf/dividend-history It's had basically two significant dividends and a bunch of small dividends.  Past performance is not indicative of future returns and all that.  It might never have a similar dividend again. What you're basically looking at with that chart is a list of recently well-performing funds - funds who had a good year.  They obviously may or may not have such a good year next year. You also have funds that are dividend-heavy (intended explicitly to return significant dividends).  Those may return large dividends, but could still fall in value significantly.  Look at ACP for example: it's currently trading near it's 2-year low.  You got a nice dividend, but the price dropped quite a bit, so you lost a chunk of that money.  (I don't know if ACP is a dividend-heavy fund, but it looks like it might be.) GF's chart is also indicative of something interesting: it fell off a cliff right after it gave its dividend (at the end of the year).  Dropped $4.  I think that's because this is a mutual fund priced based on the NAV of its holdings - so it dividended some of those holdings, which dropped the share price (and the NAV of the fund) by that amount.  IE, $18 a share, $4 a share dividend, so after that $14 a share.  (The rest of the dividends are from stock holdings which pay dividends themselves, if I understand properly).  Has a similar drop in Dec 2013.  They may simply be trying to keep the price of the fund in the ~$15 a share range; I suspect (but don't know) that some funds have in their charter a requirement to stay in a particular range and dividend excess value. Metals and Mining is an interesting special case for stocks.  It's relationship to U.S. equity (SPX) is particularly weak (~0.3 correlation) compared to most stocks so it doesn't behave like equity.  However, it is still stock and not a commodities index so it's relation to major metals (Gold for instance) is not that strong either (-0.6 correlation). Metals and Mining stocks have certainly underperformed the stock market in general over the past 25years 3% vs 9.8% (annualized) so this doesn't look particularly promising.  It did have a spectacularly good 8 year period ('99-'07) though 66% (annualized).  It's worth remembering that it is still stock.  If the market did not think it could make a reasonable profit on the stock the price would decrease until the market thought it could make the same profit as other equity (adjusted slightly for the risk).  So is it reasonable to expect that it would give the same return as other stock on average?  Yes.. -ish.  Though as has been shown in the past 25 years your actual result could vary wildly both positive and negative. (All numbers are from monthly over the last 25 years using VGPMX as a M&M proxy) you could try [FRED](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=HO7), or maybe try the CME and ICE's websites for some decent data.. haven't looked just suggestions - pretty sure the symbol for the Libor futures is EM, you could approximate from that so long as it's not a doctoral thesis The Net Present Value calculation would need to include 1) payments on the debt of $50 million (negative future cashflows) 2) returns from the project (positive future cashflows)  If both of those things are taken into account and the NPV is positive then the project could be accepted. "There is no simple answer to that, because no one knows exactly what the probability distribution of S&P 500 returns is. Here is a sketch of one possible way to proceed. Don't forget step 4!  The problem is that the stock market is full of surprises, so this kind of ""backtesting"" can only reliably tell you about what already happened, not what will happen in the future.  People argue about how much you can learn from this kind of analysis.  However, it is at the least a clearly defined and objective process.  I wouldn't advise investing your whole nest egg in anything based just on this, but I do think that it is relevant information." A futures contract is based upon a particular delivery date.  In the case of a stock index futures contract is a cash settled futures contract based upon the stock index value at a particular point in time (i.e. this is when the final settlement is determined). In your example, the S&P 500 (SPX) is a price return index - that is, it is not affected by dividends and therefore dividends are not incorporated into the index value.  Dividends will affect the price of the constituent stocks (not necessarily by the same amount as the dividend) so they do have influence on the stock index value.  Since the dividends are known ahead of time (or at least can be estimated), this has already been factored into the futures price by the market. In terms of the impact of a dividend by AAPL, AAPL is approximaetely 3.6% of the index.  Apple pays out dividends 4 times a year (currently paying out $0.52 dividends).  Assuming the market is otherwise steady and AAPL drops by $0.52 due to the dividend and Apple is priced at around $105, this would result in a drop in the index of 0.0178% or around 0.35 points. Interesting fact:  There are some futures contracts that are based upon Total Return indexes, such as the German DAX and the above logic would need to be reversed. What really matters is of course how it compares to future prices. Are we making the assumption that the future prices will be more like the average over the last 100 years (which, by looking at your diagram, we seem to be one standard deviation or so above)? Try using technical analysis, look at the charts and look for stocks that are uptrending. The dfinition of an uptrend being higher highs and higher lows. Use a stochastic indicator and buy on the dips down when the stochastic is in the oversold position (below 20) and and crossing over about to turn back upwards. Or you can also use the stochastic to trade shares that have been ranging between two prices (say between $10 and $12) for a while. As the price approaches the $10 support and the stochastic is in oversold, you would buy as the price rebounds off the $10 support and the stochastic crosses and starts rebounding back up. As the price starts reaching the resistance at $12 (with stocastic in overbought at above 80) you would look to sell and take profits. If you were able to do short selling in the competition, you could short sell at this point in time and make profits on the way up as well as on the way down. There are many more techniques you could use to set up trade opportunities using technical analysis, so it may be a subject you could research further before the comptition begins. Good luck. "5-8 years is not quite long term.  Until the naughts (the 2001-10 decade), advisors were known to say that the S&P was always positive given a 10 year holding period. Now, we're saying 15 years is always positive looking back.  One can easily pull S&P return data which would let you run numbers showing the range of returns for the 5-8 yr period you have in mind. A bit of extra effort and you can include the dollar cost averaging factor.  This wouldn't produce a guarantee, but a statistical range of expected returns over your time horizon. Then a decision like ""with a 1/4 chance of losing 25% of my money, should I stay with this plan?"" This is just an example. The numbers for 1900-2014 look like this -  In any 5 year period, an average return of 69.2% (note 1.69 means a 69% gain). Of the 111 5 year periods, 14 were negative with the worst being a 46% loss. I maintain 5 years is not really long term, but the risk is relatively low of being in the red." "Forecasts of stock market direction are not reliable, so you shouldn't be putting much weight on them.  Long term, you can expect to do better in stocks, but obtaining this better expected return has the danger of ""buying in"" to the market at a particularly bad moment, leading to a substantially lower return.  So mitigate that risk while moving in a big piece of cash by ""dollar cost averaging"".  An example would be to divide your cash hoard (conceptually) into say six pieces, and invest each piece in the index fund two months apart.  After a year you will have invested the whole sum at about the average of the index for the year." "The answer depends on what is your portfolio's objective.   If you are operating a multi-asset class portfolio (i.e. your portfolio has both bonds and stocks) and are targeting absolute returns, then yes, comparing a stock's beta (or correlation) to a bond benchmark makes sense. What you do with this stock's ""bond beta"" information further depends on what kind of return profile you want your multi-asset class portfolio to have. If you want stocks that appreciate in price when bond prices decline, then of course you want to buy ""negative bond beta"" stocks.  If you are operating a purely relative equity portfolio (i.e. you are benchmarked to the stock market), then comparing the ""bond beta"" is of little use to you.  Hope this helps."