here's NASDAQ: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5EIXIC

you can get that info for any index, and any listing for that matter. just click on "historical prices"

I'd imagine most brokerage accounts have calculators to compute this, I know fidelity does. There are probably free ones out there too, just have to search.

11/2/2006 11:38:14 AM

What about S&P 500?

Where can I find fidelity's?

11/2/2006 11:40:55 AM

just look up the ticker for S&P 500, or just click on it from the front page of yahoo finance, and then click on historical prices.

do you have a fidelity brokerage account? i don't know if the interface is the same, since mine's part of my 401k..

11/2/2006 11:51:08 AM

Damn. I forgot my benefits were through fidelity but the 401K is with someone else.

11/2/2006 11:53:24 AM

Why do you need to get this data over specific date ranges? I mean, who cares if you beat a specific index over a 2 month period? Look at periods of a year or more before you really care whether or not you beat some index.

That said, a simple spreadsheet formula will calculate it for you. Using a couple of financial calculations, you can convert it to an annualized rate as well.

11/2/2006 12:04:13 PM

I was just throwing out two random dates. All I want to do is make sure my portfolio is at or beating the market.

11/2/2006 1:10:55 PM

Well, you first have to decide upon an apropriate benchmark. If you're all in small cap stocks, who gives a flying fuck what the Dow is doing.

Next, think about whether your portfolio is staying on track to reach your goals, not whether or not you're beating the market. If you get what you want out of your investment plan, it shouldn't matter how the market performed.

11/2/2006 1:37:02 PM

I'm in mostly large growth and large value.

So, you're saying if you shoot for 10% returns every years, and you make 10%, you don't care if the market returned %30 that year?

11/2/2006 1:48:04 PM

there's many ways to skin the cat. ideally, you should care if the given market is returning 30%, because that market will return -20% on the other end of the cycle. you want to average 10% a year with some up and some down years along the way.

11/2/2006 1:50:28 PM

fair enough

11/2/2006 1:54:09 PM

Although, isn't it hard to gauge whether you are on track with just a year of data?

And how do I determine what my goal should be?

11/2/2006 1:57:09 PM

^^He said it.

Look, the way I tell clients is that if we have a goal to purchase a house with X amount of dollars and we're going to reach that goal, I don't care what the overall market did. If your investment is linked to a specific goal and you're on the road to meeting it, my work is done.

Besides, you need to look not only at return, but standard deviation (which is why you need to select an appropriate benchmark)

If you're underperforming the market by 1% but taking 20% of the risk of the table, then you're doing fine, so long as you want to be taking less risk.

11/2/2006 1:58:15 PM

Retirement is my only goal for those invested funds.

11/2/2006 2:12:27 PM

i would really like to add my piece in this thread but i cant

11/2/2006 2:50:02 PM

How do you select an appropriate benchmark?

11/2/2006 3:05:22 PM

what do you guys think about GETFs?

11/2/2006 5:32:02 PM

^^^ i'd like to add my peice in this thread but i can't?

lemme guess, you run one of the biggest funds in the world and you don't want to want legal problems....

let's not pretend that we're bigger than we are

11/2/2006 11:10:43 PM

man i'm glad i didnt buy google on october 31st

down like 7 bucks since then

11/2/2006 11:15:31 PM

Heaven forbid $7, on a $470 stock.

11/3/2006 7:50:54 PM

Quote :

"How do you select an appropriate benchmark?"

Well, a simple way to do this is to use a different index for different parts of your portfolio.

So if you were 50% large cap stocks and 50% Long-Term Bonds you could use a benchmark of 50% S&P and 50% the Lehman Brothers bond index closely resembling your average holdings.

You're probably 100% stocks, but what caps?

Use a value index if you're a value investor and a growth index if you're a growth investor.

Same for market caps. If all you own is penny stocks, comparing it with the market is like comparing it with the price of soybeans in Thailand

11/3/2006 7:58:49 PM

Quote :

"man i'm glad i didnt buy google on october 31st down like 7 bucks since then"

dude, you just need to buy a bunch of index funds.

11/3/2006 8:28:43 PM

Duke, people say things every day in this thread that make me want to throw them out a window.

This is my latest favorite:

Quote :

"yes, but only with stocks that i know are gonna be big. i did that with google and yahoo. it's gotta be headed for a jump of 50 pts or more though"

This guy can identify stocks headed for 50 point jumps. I wonder why he's wasting his time around here. He ought to be swimming in gold like Scrooge McDuck

11/3/2006 8:33:41 PM

Quote :

"You're probably 100% stocks, but what caps?"

caps?

11/3/2006 11:46:50 PM

Cap is short for Capitalization

Stocks with large market caps (>10billion) are "Large Caps" like your S&P 500
Then there are mid-caps and small-caps.

11/4/2006 12:56:44 AM

What do you think bg?

401K is

7.5% bonds
2.5% small/mid
10% international
80% large

Been thinking about increasing my international exposure and perhaps my small/mid exposure as well

Roth is

34% midcap
31% large cap growth
35% natual resource fund

About half of this was a rolled over 401K so its fairly young. Hard to tell how it is doing thus far.

Non retirement investments. It is through the pace program with UBS.

20.65% large value
20.65% large growth
8.85% small/med value
8.85% small/med growth
12% US fixed income (I think this is too high)
3% International fixed income
24% international equities
2% cash

11/4/2006 10:59:34 AM

Why so much in the Natural Resources Fund?

You're most likely tied more into NR than even that percentage, because most of your large cap funds will contain XOM, BP, etc. which over-represents that segment. Its risky, but if you're bullish on energy, then go ahead.

This is what my company currently recommends for aggresive investors:
Aggressive Growth Including Mid Caps
Large US Gro Eq 26 31
Large US Val Eq 26 27
Mid Cap US Gro Eq 10 10
Mid Cap US Val Eq 10 8
Small US Gro Eq 4 5
Small US Val Eq 4 4
Large For Eq 11 5
Small For / Em Mkt Eq 4 5
Cash and Equiv 5 5
total 100 100

Here's what that means. The first number is a strategic allocation. That's what we put in there for somewhat passive investors. For more active investors, the second number is a tactical allocation. It means the company expects US large cap to do quite well over the next quarter and are overweight it. By the same token, they have underweighted large foreign equity this quarter. (Probably due to feelings that a weaker dollar will hurt foreign equity.)

I'd stick with the strategic (first) weightings. You can drop the cash and equivalent weighting though. You'll notice there are no bonds here. I might put 5-8 % in bonds though, due to a lower correlation with the stock market than any other asset class you're investing in. Also, later down the road, when the dollar begins to recover, I'd put more than they recommend in foreign investments.

You said your non-retirement assets are only 2% cash. Does that include your emergency fund? You need one covering at least 3-6 months of your bare bones expenses (mortgage/rent, food, insurance, etc.)

11/6/2006 8:20:10 AM

Quote :

"Why so much in the Natural Resources Fund?"

Thanks for the info. When I rolled over my old 401K a few months ago gold was going up as well as oil, so I just went ahead and put it all in one natual resource fund. I thought it was a lot of money to just put in one fund at the time, but my advisor said since it was just a small part compared to my entire portfolio it should be fine.

Quote :

"Large For Eq 11 5 "

Why would you put more in foreign investments once the dollar begins to recover?
How often does your company rebalance those #s, quarterly?

Quote :

"You said your non-retirement assets are only 2% cash. Does that include your emergency fund?"

Nah, that's just cash in the account. A little of it goes to fees every year.

Thanks.

11/6/2006 8:39:38 AM

Well, strictly speaking, a weakening dollar is better for foreign investment. The more the dollar weakens, the more return you get in dollar terms.

But the reason I was saying to wait is because you'll get hurt if you buy a foreign stock and the dollar strengthens.
See, if you stock you buy goes up 5%, but the dollar goes up 5% over the same period, you really end up with nothing. Lets say a Japanese stock is bought for 100 yen when the exchange rate is 100 yen = 1 dollar. If the dollar strengthens 5% you can get 105 yen for that $1. So even if your Japanese stock appreciated to 105 yen, you're only getting $1 back on your investment.

So, while some analysts think the US dollar will be weakening rather than strenghtening, I'm not so sure. So I'd wait it out instead. If the fed cuts rates in December or January, then the dollar will weaken a bit, doing well for foreign stocks. But I'm not sure enough they'll do that (in fact, they may go the other way if productivity boosts don't increase to catch up to unit-labor costs).

Did that make any sense to you?


__
They put the numbers out quarterly, but they don't change the numbers every quarter. Sometimes they just recommend "no change"

[Edited on November 6, 2006 at 8:54 AM. Reason : .]

11/6/2006 8:53:37 AM

Makes sense, but I doubt the feds will be cutting rates any time soon.

11/6/2006 9:20:52 AM

You're right. I don't think they will either. Which means that foreign stocks aren't going to be outperforming based on a weakening dollar. So waiting until it strengthens a bit before we jump into foreign stocks is a good idea.

Some analysts are convinced of it though. They think we're going to have a hard landing, and really low inflation. Then, the fed will cut rates.

Methinks it will stay steady through December. Then it may change in '07 due to any number of economic events.

11/6/2006 9:34:54 AM

So, what exactly does a financial consultant do?

11/6/2006 9:43:34 AM

Several different roles are included in what I do.
For one, I do financial planning for individuals, couples, and families. I help them decide how much they need to save and how to invest it in order to meet their goals.
The other part of my business is investments. I do sell stocks and bonds and mutual funds in brokerage accounts, but I also do asset management. That's where people have me manage their money for them and pay me a fee rather than doing it themselves. Its like outsourcing their own financial managment because they lack the skills, discipline, interest, or time to do so themselves.

11/6/2006 9:54:16 AM

http://www.fool.com/news/commentary/2006/commentary06103007.htm?source=ifwflwlnk0000003

Here's a Motley Fool article on how much you should invest in foreign stocks. It doesn't focus on the timing of it right now (probably a good strategy, lol) but it does say to look at your individual holdings to see how much international exposure you have.

11/6/2006 10:49:03 AM

Pre-election rally today...

UCTT up 6% today
AKAM up 3.25%
CSCO up ~4% in advance of earnings (look for a dip tomorrow after hours and wed. due to profit taking)


I feel that it's a temporary run-up.

11/6/2006 12:57:15 PM

i got suplexed off the top turnbuckle by ADLR - good thing i was playing with RNAI winnings...


interesting pick:

http://biz.yahoo.com/fool/061106/116283674833.html?.v=1

11/6/2006 2:56:06 PM

CEPH gave me too many heartaches when I first started investing. Fucking tore up my blood pressure and I never actually even bought the stock. I just followed it.

11/6/2006 3:53:08 PM

^^ so to try and recoup some of that, i bought some PGNX (Adolor's competitior)...ok, enough talk about biotechs

11/6/2006 4:28:38 PM

an interesting piece - relates to some of the international vs. domestic discussion in this thread, as well as whether today's and tomorrow's market momentum will be a function of (or even a predictor of) who will be in the house and senate:

http://tinyurl.com/vhosc


although Monday M&A seemed to be a driver of today's action:

http://tinyurl.com/y7fnw2

11/6/2006 4:49:43 PM

glad i didn't sell AKAM... up almost 10% in two days

11/7/2006 12:00:26 PM

^ I'm not complaining. Got in at $46.48 a while back so anything over that and I'm happy.

11/7/2006 2:22:37 PM

one of you recco'd AKAM a while back - its been a good one

what do you all know about BEAS ?

word on the street is it might be a takeover target. even if that's not true, it seems like they do good stuff

11/7/2006 2:47:58 PM

picked up some CTRP

thinking about CBB, heard it was a takeover target too

11/7/2006 7:18:55 PM

look for a down day today due to a Democrat congress

11/8/2006 1:30:26 AM

^ you think?

From what I've read that seems to be what the market was expecting, and wanted to see, but I'll admit, my understanding of how the political process impacts the market is thin at best. My thoughts were that the change to a democratic house would have a positive impact after the GOP's irresponsible fiscal policy.

But, care to explain?

11/8/2006 8:35:47 AM

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?column=Indications&siteid=

Quote :

"U.S. stock futures down as Democrats take control "

11/8/2006 8:47:13 AM

right, but why?

I would think that with a split government, they'd almost cancel each other out, and neither party could make any significant changes (do further damage). I'm basically asking why the market reacts negatively to this news.

11/8/2006 8:57:56 AM

Democrats are less friendly to the economy, in general, because they favor higher corporate tax rates and more regulation/interference.

Even if Bush can veto a large amount of their laws, the market still takes this as a bad thing. Also, if the 15% tax bracket is allowed to sunset in 2010 (as scheduled) people will lose an incentive to invest in the market. If that happens, stocks will become less attractive and thus should reflect a lower price.

11/8/2006 9:02:05 AM

thanks, that makes sense.

goddamn liberals.

11/8/2006 9:12:47 AM

Also, don't forget the promise made by a few dems to get a windfall profits tax (pray to God they don't) and a rise in minimum wage will hurt a few companies too. You see, not that many people make minimum wage, but plenty of unions have their wages tied to the minimum wage, so they a;; get raises too.

And with wage inflation numbers already being pretty bad (0% productivity, but still a healthy rise in unit-labor costs) you're looking at wage inflation getting worse, meaning no fed rate cut, and quite possibly a raise in rates from the fed. That would be shitty on bond prices, with yields climbing, and also makes companies less profitable due to having higher borrowing costs.

(I don't think the market is going to crash or anything, but I won't be surpised to see it settle for a while to see what they can/will do with a majority)

11/8/2006 10:37:47 AM

The economy will be pretty feel-good after the Dems pull us out of Iraq.

11/8/2006 10:41:46 AM