What 10 companies are you categorically convinced will still be surrounded by business 20,30,40, 50 years from immediately...?
Assume you have to pick 10 stocks and NEVER convert them for your retirement, or for your childs education. What 10 companies come to mind. Obviously big panama dow stocks like JNJ, KO, etc... but what else?Thanks
Answers: Large/mega boater alone is NOT the correct answer here. The only company within the Dow 30 today that was surrounded by the original Dow 12 is GE, and their business have changed a lot over the year. The detail of companies in the S&P500 that from 40 years ago is conceivably 80% different. Sure some of that is from mergers and acquisition, but most of that is from companies becoming irrelevant and dwindling away. Capitalism is brutal for investors. What you're looking for isn't sheer size -- though size is an earth-shattering factor and an indicator of what you are looking for. You are looking for a business with a durable competitive benefit in a flea market that changes contained by ways that are not disruptive.
Many consumer products: KO, JNJ, PG, WWY, HSY come to mind.
Also I would say bank and insurance companies _should_ meet the oral exam, however with the amount to which these companies leverage themselves (15-20x), they only obligation to lose 5-7% of assets to go broke; that's far from impossible. Eventually a very big edge or very big insurance company leveraged resembling this WILL go in receivership. So in the arena of bank and insurance companies I would maybe pick the ones who are run by and enjoy a history of being run by conservative and hopeful managers. WFC comes to mind as a guard and BRK as an insurer.
Then there are companies beside irreplicable and structural low-cost advantages. Companies like Geico (auto insurance companies next to agents can't match them contained by price with agents and can't do business lacking their agents), WMT (feedback loop of scale, bargain power with producers, more customers, more level, more bargaining power...).
Then nearby are one-off cases like MCO and S&P which exist surrounded by a natural duopoly (more or a reduced amount of than 2 opinions on debt securities are worse than 2) and are further entrenched contained by that governments routinely mention their ratings in law and regulations.
Who knows for sure which companies will still be around. Big companies in a minute can go bust in 15 years.
You should try to trade stocks using support and Resistance instead of putting your money contained by 10 stocks and hope they go up by the time you retire.
This is a great website that will donate you lots of tips on how to trade stocks.
Is NOW a well-mannered time to buy APPLE stock?
sorry for asking this question twice, and thank u to the three populace who answered. i want at least 1 or 2 more responses earlier i validate my prudence on what to do in the subsequent week regarding investing contained by apple. thank you all again!Answers: It is not a angelic time to buy Apple. Apple has some upright products that did very resourcefully, but the hype was a short time ago too high. Lots of relations bought into Apple because it was adjectives over TV. Expectations were a moment ago too high. Now culture that got burned are still holding on and praying. The P/E is still in the region of 35, meaning that expectations are still soaring. Apple needs to come down a bit more. I would also dawdle for a catalyst, another new product that will drive the company.
I loaf. They somewhat lowered their outlook for 2008. I would wait a bit bit, possible 3 or 4 months. Demand for Ipods are down, because everybody has one and can't afford to attain the new updated look due to the reduction.
Again, wait a few months...
I would surely recommend you to buy Apple stock near a target of $200. I think it is a steal below $160.
So buy that stock and you wont regret it.
So, this guy have authority to commit fraud, but lone up to a point? !!?
SocGen said the trader, responsible for futures hedging on European equity market indexes, have taken massive fraudulent positions in 2007 and 2008 beyond his authority.http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080124/ts_n...
Answers: He didn't enjoy an authorization to do it. He did it behind the scene and hid it from supervision and other people he worked beside.
If his managers have known what he be doing, they would have put a stop to it relatively a long time ago, I can assure you.
Not the first time something like this have happened. There be some dude in the 70s who did it and destroyed the mound he worked at.
He knew the system and its limitations so he worked around those. He lack a moral compass.