Entering the stock market in a poor economy
"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." Buy low and sell high.  Right now stocks are cheap (or at least cheapish).  If you wait for better forecasts, the price will be higher.  They might go down still farther, but no one knows for sure when that will happen, or where the bottom is -- despite what the talking heads on TV say.  Remember that what you really care about is sell price minus purchase price (plus dividends, but I'll ignore that).  What happens between the time you buy and the time you sell is irrelevant financially, but can be important psychologically. If it was me, and you are sure you won't need the money for at least 10 years, or better still 15-20, I would buy some index funds.  Pick something that you are comfortable with (some are more aggressive/risky than others), and then only look at it a few times a year, if that much.  Only do this as long as you are sure that you won't sell if the market drops further. That is a guaranteed way to lose money. This is what I've been doing for my retirement funds for 15 years, and its worked well so far. Well, you probably already know this, but no-one can guarantee you results...in any economic climate.  Even traditionally low risk investments now seem higher risk to people when the economic forecasts are grim.  That being said, 0.5% is pretty low.  So, where does that leave you? Why not start with a risk tolerance analysis for yourself.  There's a bunch on them on the internet if you google it.  Here's one:  Rutgers Financial Risk Tolerance Quiz Based on the result you get back, and whether you agree with it or not, this may give you a starting point for determining if entering the stock market is right for you.  I'm guessing you can get better than 0.5% return over 10 years pretty easily though. Are you kidding? The stock markets just took a nose dive this week. Perfect buying opportunity. Just be sure to dollar cost average your way in to avoid excessive timing risk. If you have a long enough time horizon, investing in the stock market while in a bad economy can turn out to be a very smart decision. If you need access to your capital in the short-term, 1-2 years, then it is probably a bad decision. If you have the ability to ride out the next few years, then you may be buying securities at an extremely low valuation. Take AAPL and MSFT for example. These are both technology stocks, which is by far the hottest sector in the economy now, and you can buy both of these companies for less than 13x earnings. Historically, you would have had to pay 20x or higher for high tech growth companies, but today you can buy these stocks at discounted valuations. Now AAPL may have a large market capitalization and a high stock price, but the simple fact is they are growing their earnings very quickly, they have best in class management, and they have $100 billion in cash and $50 billion in annual cash flow generation and you can buy the stock for a historically low multiple. Wow I love some of these answers. Remember why you are investing in the first place.  For me I like Dividend stocks and Dividend Capturing. Here is why. With over 3500 dividend stock companies paying out dividends this year, that means I can get a dividend check almost every day. What about if the stock goes down you ask? Well out of these 3500 companies there is a small group of these stocks that have consistently increased their dividend payout to their investors for over 25 years and a smaller group that have been increasing every year their pay outs for over 50 years. Yes Kennedy was in office back then and to this day they consistently pay higher and higher dividend payments to their investors, every year... for 50 years.  As for the Dividend Capturing strategy, that allows me to collect up 10-20 checks per month with that little effort. As for the stock going down... Here is a little tidbit that most buyers overlook. Stock price is more or less the public's perception of the value of a certain company. Earnings, balance sheet, cash flow, market cap and a few other things in the quarterly report will give you a better answer to the value of a company. If stock price goes down while earning and market go keep going up... what does that tell you?
I actually read that a lot of times, that isn’t necessarily true. In some of these third world countries, the issue is less that the money is wasted but that there isn’t enough to make the kinds of optimal investments that were thinking of.   For example, someone might understand intellectually that they need to buy a water buffalo to scale up their farm but saving up the money to do so would mean that they wouldn’t be able to feed their kids for two years. They’re not “bad with money”, they just flat out don’t have enough to go beyond subsistence.   I think that’s the target market for these types of programs. They won’t work for everyone, people who are actually irresponsible will screw up no matter how much money and coaching you give them. But this could be a game changer for people who are good with the money they do have and just need a boost. In the intro to the Big Short, the author talks about how he wrote liars poter to steer people away from wall street, but in the end it became a manual for how to work there.  I am not trying to steer you away, or towards anything except the facts. If you want to do well in something, the best idea is to understand it; warts and all. "An answer can be found in my book, ""A Modern Approach to Graham and Dodd Investing,"" p. 89 http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Approach-Graham-Investing-Finance/dp/0471584150/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321628992&sr=1-1 ""If a company has no sustained cash flow over time, it has no value...If a company has positive cash flow but economic earnings are zero or less, it has a value less than book value and is a wasting asset. There is enough cash to pay interim dividends, bu the net present value of the dividend stream is less than book value."" A company with a stock trading below book value is believed to be ""impaired,"" perhaps because assets are overstated. Depending on the situation, it may or may not be a bankruptcy candidate." There's a few options you may want to look into. First, I'm writing from an US point of view, I do not know if these are available in Russia.  First look into DRIPS (Dividend Reinvestment Plans). These seem tailor made for your request. They are plans set up by companies that pay dividends. If you own at least one share (costing no more than say $100 often less), then these companies will take the dividends paid on these shares and automatically buy more shares as the income from the dividends pile up. This is a low cost of entry way of getting in on many high quality stocks. Stalwart stocks such as GE and many utility and real estate stocks (REITs) offer this.  Check out these links: Secondly you can look at brokerages that specialize in buying smaller amount of stocks on a regular basis to simulate a DRIP, ShareBuilder will allow you to invest say $50 or $100 a month into one or more stocks. However, at smaller amounts, their commission fees can eat in to your returns.  Folio investing does the same thing as Sharebuilder. It's worth looking at them both and comparing their commissions and other features Check out http://garynorth.com if you have $15/month.  Or at least subscribe to his free newsletters (Tip of the Week, Reality Check).  Well worth it. He doesn't pay much attention to the US market indicators, except to note that people are about 20% poorer than they were 10 years ago.  He looks at more basic indicators like M1, treasury rates, unemployment figures, etc. He recommended buying gold in 2001.  He changed his recommended investment portfolio most recently about a couple of years ago (!) and it's done quite well. Your understanding of the stock market is absolutely correct theoretically. However there is a lot more to it. A stock on a given day is effected by a lot of factors. These factors could really be anything. For example, if you are buying a stock in an agricultural company and there was no rainfall this year, there is a big chance that your stock will lose value. There is also a chance that a war breaks out tomorrow and due to all the government spending on the war, the economy collapses and effects the prices of stocks. Why does this happen? This happens because bad rainfall or war can get people to lose confidence in a stock market. On the other hand GDP growth and low unemployment rates can make people think positive and increase the demand in a stock driving the prices up. The main factor in the stock market is sentiment(How people perceive certain news). This causes a stock to rise or fall even before the event actually happens. (For example:- Weather pundits predicted good rainfall for next year. That news is already known to people, so if the weather pundit was correct, it might not drive the prices up. However, if the rainfall was way better than people expected it to be it would drive the price up and vice versa.   These are just examples at a basic level. There are a lot of other factors which determine the price of the stock. The best way to look at it(In my personal opinion) is the way Warren Buffet puts it, i.e. look at the stock as a business and see the potential growth over a long period of time.  There will be unexpected events, but in the long run, the business must be profitable. There are various ways to value a company such as Price to earnings ratios, PEG ratios, discounted cash flows and you can also create your own. See what works best for you and record your success/failure ratio before you actually put money in.  Good Luck, I want to know too. Outside of the stock market there could be a lot of assets that aren't being supported as well as stocks by the US government. If that's the case we could be seeing another signaller showing the poor shape of the economy. If you have money and may need to access it at any time, you should put it in a savings account.  It won't return much interest, but it will return some and it is easily accessible.   If you have all your emergency savings that you need (at least six months of income), buy index-based mutual funds.  These should invest in a broad range of securities including both stocks and bonds (three dollars in stocks for every dollar in bonds) so as to be robust in the face of market shifts.   You should not buy individual stocks unless you have enough money to buy a lot of them in different industries.  Thirty different stocks is a minimum for a diversified portfolio, and you really should be looking at more like a hundred.  There's also considerable research effort required to verify that the stocks are good buys.  For most people, this is too much work.  For most people, broad-based index funds are better purchases.  You don't have as much upside, but you also are much less likely to find yourself holding worthless paper.   If you do buy stocks, look for ones where you know something about them.  For example, if you've been to a restaurant chain with a recent IPO that really wowed you with their food and service, consider investing.  But do your research, so that you don't get caught buying after everyone else has already overbid the price.  The time to buy is right before everyone else notices how great they are, not after.   Some people benefit from joining investment clubs with others with similar incomes and goals.  That way you can share some of the research duties.  Also, you can get other opinions before buying, which can restrain risky impulse buys.   Just to reiterate, I would recommend sticking to mutual funds and saving accounts for most investors.  Only make the move into individual stocks if you're willing to be serious about it.  There's considerable work involved.  And don't forget diversification.  You want to have stocks that benefit regardless of what the overall economy does.  Some stocks should benefit from lower oil prices while others benefit from higher prices.  You want to have both types so as not to be caught flat-footed when prices move.   There are much more experienced people trying to guess market directions.  If your strategy relies on outperforming them, it has a high chance of failure.  Index-based mutual funds allow you to share the diversification burden with others.  Since the market almost always goes up in the long term, a fund that mimics the market is much safer than any individual security can be.  Maintaining a three to one balance in stocks to bonds also helps as they tend to move in opposite directions.  I.e. stocks tend to be good when bonds are weak and vice versa. "Index funds can be a very good way to get into the stock market. It's a lot easier, and cheaper, to buy a few shares of an index fund than it is to buy a few shares in hundreds of different companies. An index fund will also generally charge lower fees than an ""actively managed"" mutual fund, where the manager tries to pick which stocks to invest for you. While the actively managed fund might give you better returns (by investing in good companies instead of every company in the index) that doesn't always work out, and the fees can eat away at that advantage. (Stocks, on average, are expected to yield an annual return of 4%, after inflation. Consider that when you see an expense ratio of 1%. Index funds should charge you more like 0.1%-0.3% or so, possibly more if it's an exotic index.) The question is what sort of index you're going to invest in. The Standard and Poor's 500 (S&P 500) is a major index, and if you see someone talking about the performance of a mutual fund or investment strategy, there's a good chance they'll compare it to the return of the S&P 500. Moreover, there are a variety of index funds and exchange-traded funds that offer very good expense ratios (e.g. Vanguard's ETF charges ~0.06%, very cheap!). You can also find some funds which try to get you exposure to the entire world stock market, e.g. Vanguard Total World Stock ETF, NYSE:VT). An index fund is probably the ideal way to start a portfolio - easy, and you get a lot of diversification. Later, when you have more money available, you can consider adding individual stocks or investing in specific sectors or regions. (Someone else suggested Brazil/Russia/Indo-China, or BRICs - having some money invested in that region isn't necessarily a bad idea, but putting all or most of your money in that region would be. If BRICs are more of your portfolio then they are of the world economy, your portfolio isn't balanced. Also, while these countries are experiencing a lot of economic growth, that doesn't always mean that the companies that you own stock in are the ones which will benefit; small businesses and new ventures may make up a significant part of that growth.) Bond funds are useful when you want to diversify your portfolio so that it's not all stocks. There's a bunch of portfolio theory built around asset allocation strategies. The idea is that you should try to maintain a target mix of assets, whatever the market's doing. The basic simplified guideline about investing for retirement says that your portfolio should have (your age)% in bonds (e.g. a 30-year-old should have 30% in bonds, a 50-year-old 50%.) This helps maintain a balance between the volatility of your portfolio (the stock market's ups and downs) and the rate of return: you want to earn money when you can, but when it's almost time to spend it, you don't want a sudden stock market crash to wipe it all out. Bonds help preserve that value (but don't have as nice of a return). The other idea behind asset allocation is that if the market changes - e.g. your stocks go up a lot while your bonds stagnate - you rebalance and buy more bonds. If the stock market subsequently crashes, you move some of your bond money back into stocks. This basically means that you buy low and sell high, just by maintaining your asset allocation. This is generally more reliable than trying to ""time the market"" and move into an asset class before it goes up (and move out before it goes down). Market-timing is just speculation. You get better returns if you guess right, but you get worse returns if you guess wrong. Commodity funds are useful as another way to diversify your portfolio, and can serve as a little bit of protection in case of crisis or inflation. You can buy gold, silver, platinum and palladium ETFs on the stock exchanges. Having a small amount of money in these funds isn't a bad idea, but commodities can be subject to violent price swings! Moreover, a bar of gold doesn't really earn any money (and owning a share of a precious-metals ETF will incur administrative, storage, and insurance costs to boot). A well-run business does earn money. Assuming you're saving for the long haul (retirement or something several decades off) my suggestion for you would be to start by investing most of your money* in index funds to match the total world stock market (with something like the aforementioned NYSE:VT, for instance), a small portion in bonds, and a smaller portion in commodity funds. (For all the negative stuff I've said about market-timing, it's pretty clear that the bond market is very expensive right now, and so are the commodities!) Then, as you do additional research and determine what sort investments are right for you, add new investment money in the places that you think are appropriate - stock funds, bond funds, commodity funds, individual stocks, sector-specific funds, actively managed mutual funds, et cetera - and try to maintain a reasonable asset allocation. Have fun. *(Most of your investment money. You should have a separate fund for emergencies, and don't invest money in stocks if you know you're going need it within the next few years)." "At this level it's not so much about ""handling money"" in the way we think of it in the first world.   It's more like you have no possible way to get enough capital to get out of a desperately bad situation. But if you do get that capital, you can start digging your way out.  For example, in one case I read about, someone used part of that $1000 to buy a cow. Then she started selling milk and saving money." I think this could be changed quickly if they were forced to participate in the markets.  Sadly I spent 3 years of my bachelors degree in finance studying EMH. Only in my last year, in two classes we covered the disiquilibrium. If there are no jobs they can save and plan their escape to someplace with jobs. You can double down and work a high risk high $ job like mining or an oil rig until you save enough to work a safer job.   Nothing constrains you in the US The idea of a stockmarket is multiple people betting on the value of an asset and then getting paid the difference between their bet and the real value of the asset.  The goal being to keep the value of the stock as accurate as possible so capital is allocated to companies that will use it most efficiently.  The reward for people making these bets is a portion of that capital.    What you are suggesting is just a graph of the average happiness.  The difficult part of turning this into a market, is being able to assign value to happiness, value that you can gain or lose by choice.      Ironically, money is a indicator of happiness.  When apple came out with the iPhone, people saw it and decided it would make them happier if they owned it creating demand.  Investors noticed that people believed owning an iphone would make them happier so they bid up the price of AAPL stock.  People are happier with their iPhones and investors benefitted from this happiness and got cash allowing them to spend money on things to increase their happiness.    In order to extract happiness from the stock market a lot of other things come into play.  A biotech company curing cancer would be a solution to something that drastically decreases happiness.  Increasing alcohol sales might be a result of people trying to offset the sadness in the short term but in the long term it is a depressant and doesn't make you happy.  An individual might be happier with an extra $10B but overall 1 million people getting $10k each would increase average happiness much more.  But somebody like buffet can invest in companies that can generate way more happiness than just handing out cash.    The happiness report is an annual report of happiness.  Looking at these results next to the Gini coefficient (income inequality), and industry growth by country might start to give you an idea of what affects happiness.  For instance in Africa income inequality could sky rocket while the stock market plummets and happiness could still increase because of public health investments made years ago, causing the infant mortality rate to plummet.  If you want to think about this topic I recommend reading the great escape by Angus Deaton. No.  In good years, the income seems free. In a down year, particularly a bad one, the investor will be subject to large losses that will prove the strategy a bad one.  On the other hand, one often hears of the strategy of selling puts on stock you would like to own. If the stock rises, you keep the premium, if it drops, you own it at a bit of a discount from that starting point. "I had the same thing happen to me in late 2010.  I contacted the big company's bored-sounding payroll department - after wading through the phone menu, and more than one ""all of our operators are busy, please call back later <click>"" - and told them I had this extra money.  The guy in India told me that my petition would be investigated and that a ticket would be opened.  I heard nothing for a couple of weeks.  I followed up with payroll.  They said that my petition investigation had determined that I did indeed get paid extra, and they'd be sending me a letter demanding the overpayment. I received no letter, and a month later (January 2011) I got a W-2 with the paycheck included on it.  I decided that I'd spent enough of my own time and effort on it, and if they wanted it back, the ball was in their court.  I changed my bank account numbers to prevent them from auto-debiting my account, and spent the money as if it was mine.   I have not heard anything about it since then. From what I was able to determine, once I'd made a good-faith effort to return it, I was in the clear. And for what it's worth, it's not like you can just ""return"" it.  Among other things: I certainly wasn't just going to mail the company a check and hope for the best."