Stockmall

The authors of a paper published by NBER on March 2000 and titled “The Foundations of Technical Analysis” – Andrew Lo, Harry Mamaysky, and Jiang Wang – claim that:

“Technical analysis, also known as ‘charting’, has been part of financial practice for many decades, but this discipline has not received the same level of academic scrutiny and acceptance as more traditional approaches such as fundamental analysis.

One of the main obstacles is the highly subjective nature of technical analysis – the presence of geometric shapes in historical price charts is often in the eyes of the beholder. In this paper we offer a systematic and automatic approach to technical pattern recognition … and apply the method to a large number of US stocks from 1962 to 1996…”

And the conclusion:

” … Over the 31-year sample period, several technical indicators do provide incremental information and may have some practical value.”

These hopeful inferences are supported by the work of other scholars, such as Paul Weller of the Finance Department of the university of Iowa. While he admits the limitations of technical analysis – it is a-theoretic and data intensive, pattern over-fitting can be a problem, its rules are often difficult to interpret, and the statistical testing is cumbersome – he insists that “trading rules are picking up patterns in the data not accounted for by standard statistical models” and that the excess returns thus generated are not simply a risk premium.

Technical analysts have flourished and waned in line with the stock exchange bubble. They and their multi-colored charts regularly graced CNBC, the CNN and other market-driving channels. “The Economist” found that many successful fund managers have regularly resorted to technical analysis – including George Soros’ Quantum Hedge fund and Fidelity’s Magellan. Technical analysis may experience a revival now that corporate accounts – the fundament of fundamental analysis – have been rendered moot by seemingly inexhaustible scandals.

The field is the progeny of Charles Dow of Dow Jones fame and the founder of the “Wall Street Journal”. He devised a method to discern cyclical patterns in share prices. Other sages – such as Elliott – put forth complex “wave theories”. Technical analysts now regularly employ dozens of geometric configurations in their divinations.

Technical analysis is defined thus in “The Econometrics of Financial Markets”, a 1997 textbook authored by John Campbell, Andrew Lo, and Craig MacKinlay:

“An approach to investment management based on the belief that historical price series, trading volume, and other market statistics exhibit regularities – often … in the form of geometric patterns … that can be profitably exploited to extrapolate future price movements.”

A less fanciful definition may be the one offered by Edwards and Magee in “Technical Analysis of Stock Trends”:

“The science of recording, usually in graphic form, the actual history of trading (price changes, volume of transactions, etc.) in a certain stock or in ‘the averages’ and then deducing from that pictured history the probable future trend.”

Fundamental analysis is about the study of key statistics from the financial statements of firms as well as background information about the company’s products, business plan, management, industry, the economy, and the marketplace.

Economists, since the 1960’s, sought to rebuff technical analysis. Markets, they say, are efficient and “walk” randomly. Prices reflect all the information known to market players – including all the information pertaining to the future. Technical analysis has often been compared to voodoo, alchemy, and astrology – for instance by Burton Malkiel in his seminal work, “A Random Walk Down Wall Street”.

The paradox is that technicians are more orthodox than the most devout academic. They adhere to the strong version of market efficiency. The market is so efficient, they say, that nothing can be gleaned from fundamental analysis. All fundamental insights, information, and analyses are already reflected in the price. This is why one can deduce future prices from past and present ones.

Jack Schwager, sums it up in his book “Schwager on Futures: Technical Analysis”, quoted by Stockcharts.com:

“One way of viewing it is that markets may witness extended periods of random fluctuation, interspersed with shorter periods of nonrandom behavior. The goal of the chartist is to identify those periods (i.e. major trends).”

Not so, retort the fundamentalists. The fair value of a security or a market can be derived from available information using mathematical models – but is rarely reflected in prices. This is the weak version of the market efficiency hypothesis.

The mathematically convenient idealization of the efficient market, though, has been debunked in numerous studies. These are efficiently summarized in Craig McKinlay and Andrew Lo’s tome “A Non-random Walk Down Wall Street” published in 1999.

Not all markets are strongly efficient. Most of them sport weak or “semi-strong” efficiency. In some markets, a filter model – one that dictates the timing of sales and purchases – could prove useful. This is especially true when the equilibrium price of a share – or of the market as a whole – changes as a result of externalities.

Substantive news, change in management, an oil shock, a terrorist attack, an accounting scandal, an FDA approval, a major contract, or a natural, or man-made disaster – all cause share prices and market indices to break the boundaries of the price band that they have occupied. Technical analysts identify these boundaries and trace breakthroughs and their outcomes in terms of prices.

Technical analysis may be nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy, though. The more devotees it has, the stronger it affects the shares or markets it analyses. Investors move in herds and are inclined to seek patterns in the often bewildering marketplace. As opposed to the assumptions underlying the classic theory of portfolio analysis – investors do remember past prices. They hesitate before they cross certain numerical thresholds.

But this herd mentality is also the Achilles heel of technical analysis. If everyone were to follow its guidance – it would have been rendered useless. If everyone were to buy and sell at the same time – based on the same technical advice – price advantages would have been arbitraged away instantaneously. Technical analysis is about privileged information to the privileged few – though not too few, lest prices are not swayed.

Studies cited in Edwin Elton and Martin Gruber’s “Modern Portfolio Theory and Investment Analysis” and elsewhere show that a filter model – trading with technical analysis – is preferable to a “buy and hold” strategy but inferior to trading at random. Trading against recommendations issued by a technical analysis model and with them – yielded the same results. Fama-Blum discovered that the advantage proffered by such models is identical to transaction costs.

The proponents of technical analysis claim that rather than forming investor psychology – it reflects their risk aversion at different price levels. Moreover, the borders between the two forms of analysis – technical and fundamental – are less sharply demarcated nowadays. “Fundamentalists” insert past prices and volume data in their models – and “technicians” incorporate arcana such as the dividend stream and past earnings in theirs.

It is not clear why should fundamental analysis be considered superior to its technical alternative. If prices incorporate all the information known and reflect it – predicting future prices would be impossible regardless of the method employed. Conversely, if prices do not reflect all the information available, then surely investor psychology is as important a factor as the firm’s – now oft-discredited – financial statements?

Prices, after all, are the outcome of numerous interactions among market participants, their greed, fears, hopes, expectations, and risk aversion. Surely studying this emotional and cognitive landscape is as crucial as figuring the effects of cuts in interest rates or a change of CEO?

Still, even if we accept the rigorous version of market efficiency – i.e., as Aswath Damodaran of the Stern Business School at NYU puts it, that market prices are “unbiased estimates of the true value of investments” – prices do react to new information – and, more importantly, to anticipated information. It takes them time to do so. Their reaction constitutes a trend and identifying this trend at its inception can generate excess yields. On this both fundamental and technical analysis are agreed.

Moreover, markets often over-react: they undershoot or overshoot the “true and fair value”. Fundamental analysis calls this oversold and overbought markets. The correction back to equilibrium prices sometimes takes years. A savvy trader can profit from such market failures and excesses.

As quality information becomes ubiquitous and instantaneous, research issued by investment banks discredited, privileged access to information by analysts prohibited, derivatives proliferate, individual participation in the stock market increases, and transaction costs turn negligible – a major rethink of our antiquated financial models is called for.

The maverick Andrew Lo, a professor of finance at the Sloan School of Management at MIT, summed up the lure of technical analysis in lyric terms in an interview he gave to Traders.com’s “Technical Analysis of Stocks and Commodities”, quoted by Arthur Hill in Stockcharts.com:

“The more creativity you bring to the investment process, the more rewarding it will be. The only way to maintain ongoing success, however, is to constantly innovate. That’s much the same in all endeavors. The only way to continue making money, to continue growing and keeping your profit margins healthy, is to constantly come up with new ideas.”

As turnaround investors, I prefer to invest in companies that are down but not out. This is important because a lot of times, investors misunderstood the two. Often times, these two types of companies are trading near or at their 52 week low. But the similarity ends there.

Company that is Down. This is the company that experiences problem and it seems like it can weather the problem. It just needs time to right the ship and get back on track. How can we be certain that the company can weather the storm? The ultimate guideline is to look at the company’s balance sheet and income statement. Does the company have a positive net cash? Is the company expected to post a profit? If the answer is yes to both questions, then the company in question is most likely is just down, but not out.

Company that is Out. This is the company that experiences problem but its future existence might be in doubt. It might right the ship but by then it might be too late. As a result, shareholders will be wiped out and lose 100% of their investment. How can we be certain for the company that is out? Again, we have to check the ultimate guideline, which is the balance sheet and income statement of the company. Does the company have a negative net cash? Is the company expected to post a loss for the foreseeable future? If the answer is yes to both questions, then the company in question has the high probability of being out of business.

Using analogy without illustrations are confusing, in my opinion. Therefore, I will choose one company for each situation. Please do not treat this as a buy or sell recommendation. This is merely my observation as someone who had watched these companies for a while.

Pfizer Inc. (PFE) might be categorized as the company that is down. Stock price slumped to 8 year low this week due to weak sales of its drug franchises and tepid guidance. Management has refused to update guidance for 2006 and beyond due to uncertainty. So, let’s look at Pfizer’s balance sheet, shall we? The latest information on Pfizer shows that the company has 15 Billion of cash and equivalent and 5.517 Billion in long term debt. In other words, Pfizer has 9.5 Billion of positive net cash. How about earnings? Is Pfizer expected to post a loss? Nope, it is expected to post earnings of 1.95 per share for year 2005 or 14 Billion of net profit. Profit is plenty while balance sheet is solid. Pfizer clearly is a company that simply has a small bump in the road.

How about AMR Corp (AMR)? This is an excellent example of a company that is out. Looking at the balance sheet, AMR has a negative net cash of 9.5 Billion. What this means is that it has 9.5 Billion more long term debt than it has cash. Is AMR profitable? Not a chance. It is expected to post a loss of 4.36 per share for 2005 or 714 Million. It doesn’t look pretty. High amount of debt and big loss is the recipe for a company that is down. If AMR doesn’t turn its ship anytime soon, it might be forced to file bankruptcy.

To consistently make money, investors need to be able to differentiate the company that is down and company that is out. Weed out the company that is out and your investment return will be so much better.

Unless you have been in a cocoon, you most likely are aware that China will in all probability become the next economic superpower in the world. The countrys economy is on steroids, growing at close to double digits over the past few years and this is not expected to change.

And if you understand the vast size of the countrys economic engine, you would also understand that China is a place where you need to have some capital invested. Of course, at the same time, you also need to fully understand the risk factors associated in investing in a country where the economy and corporate structure is strictly under the control of the communist-led government.

The concept of an open economy in China is debatable as there is the constant threat of government intervention at any time to suit the political agenda. Yet the risk is probably warranted given the vast growth opportunities that lie in the country for both multi-national companies and investors looking for some diversification outside of their borders. This region of the world will become the next big boom in economic growth as long as the Chinese government is willing.

A report just published by the Development Research Center of China’s State Council estimates that the country will report GDP growth of about 8% annually from 2006 to 2010. Based on the numbers we have been seeing, this estimate seems to be reasonable.

The report estimates that Chinas GDP based on 2000 prices will hit USD2.3 trillion by the end of the current five-year period in 2010.

In the subsequent 10-year period from 2010 to 2020, the report calculates a decline in the annual GDP growth rate to around 7%, which is still quite respectable.

For investors, the estimated numbers are staggering but then China must be able to manage any inflationary and growth-related issues going forward as the country becomes richer.

The countrys middle class of several hundred million strong is booming as citizens move from the countryside to the cities in search of opportunities to increase their wealth.

As Chinese citizens make more money, they become more consumption driven. This in turn pumps up the demand for both domestic and foreign good and services. Thats why we are seeing such a mass flow of companies into China searching for growth opportunities.

The bottomline is you need to be in China at some point. In future commentaries, I will examine some of the key Chinese stocks trading as American Depository Receipts (ADRs) in the U.S.

If you know the pitfalls of trading, you can easily avoid them. Small mistakes are inevitable, such as entering the wrong stock symbol or incorrectly setting a buy level. But these are forgivable, and, with luck, even profitable. What you have to avoid, however, are the mistakes due to bad judgment rather than simple errors. These are the deadly mistakes which ruin entire trading careers instead of just one or two trades. To avoid these pitfalls, you have to watch yourself closely and stay diligent.

Think of trading mistakes like driving a car on icy roads: if you know that driving on ice is dangerous, you can avoid traveling in a sleet storm. But if you dont know about the dangers of ice, you might drive as if there were no threat, only realizing your mistake once youre already off the road.

One of the first mistakes new traders make is sinking a lot of wasted time and effort into predicting legitimate trends. Traders can use very complicated formulas, indictors, and systems to identify possible trends. Theyll end up plotting so many indicators on a single screen that they cant even see the prices anymore. The problem is that they lose sight of simple decisions about when to buy and when to sell.

The mistake here is trying to understand too much at once. Some people think that the more complicated their system is, the better it will be at predicting trends. This is almost always an illusion. Depending too much on complicated systems makes you completely lose sight of the basic principle of trading: buy when the market is going up and sell when its going down. Since you want to buy and sell early in a trend, the most important thing to discover is when a trend begins. Complicated indicators only obscure this information.

Remember to keep it simple: one of the easiest ways to identify a trend is to use trendlines. Trendlines are straightforward ways to let you know when you are seeing an uptrend (when prices make a series of higher highs and higher lows) and downtrends (when prices show lower highs and lower lows). Trendlines show you the lower limits of an uptrend or the upper limits of a downtrend and, most importantly, can help you see when a trend is starting to change.

Once you get comfortable plotting trendlines, you can use them to decide when to start taking action. Only after using these early indicators should you start using more specific strategies to determine your exact buy or sell point. Moving averages, turtle trading, and the Relative Strength Index (RSI) are some examples of more complex indicators and systems that are available. But only use them after youve determined if the market is trending or not.

The first quarter of 2006 is over. Now is a good time to reflect on stock prices and the opportunities they present.

Bargains are scarce. Equities are expensive. In recent weeks, Ive heard several fund managers say valuations are still attractive. I dont agree. Generally speaking, valuations are unattractive. Returns on equity are higher than historical levels. A market-wide return on equity of 15% is unsustainable. Price-to-earnings ratios may not fully reflect how expensive stocks are. Price-to-book ratios are more alarming.

There are two additional concerns. Most discussions of the relative attractiveness of equities focus on the S&P 500 and forward earnings. The S&P 500 is not the most representative index. It may not be the best index to consider when looking at market-wide valuations.

Forward earnings are (necessarily) estimates. Where current returns on equity are unsustainable, projected earnings that use similar returns on equity may overstate the earnings power of equities in general. This can occur even where the estimates appear reasonable given current earnings. If you start with unsustainable base earnings, you are likely to overestimate future earnings even if you truly believe you are assuming very modest earnings growth.

Assets in general are pricey. Value investors have few places to turn if they continue to insist upon a true margin of safety.

Bonds are unattractive. Long-term inflation risks make U.S. treasury, corporate, and municipal bonds a fools bet. There is little to gain and much to lose. The know-nothing investor who buys a top-quality bond today and holds it for decades may very well find his purchasing power diminished.

There may be some select opportunities in foreign equities. But, these are difficult to evaluate. Foreign government obligations are also difficult to evaluate, but that isnt much of a problem for value investors, because most foreign government debt is priced to perfection. Youll have to be willing to take a lot of uncompensated risks if you want to own such bonds.

Of course, there are exceptions to every rule. There may be a few bonds out there that are attractive. There certainly are a few attractive stocks out there. But, even those stocks that look very attractive relative to their peers dont look nearly as attractive when compared to past bargains.

Value investors face a difficult choice. They can assume stock prices will return to historical levels, and hold cash until the correction comes. Or, they can accept the reality they currently face.

There is no logical reason stock prices must necessarily return to historical levels. During the twentieth century, real after-tax returns in diversified groups of common stocks were very high relative to other investment opportunities. There have been various reasons given for why this occurred. Many have said these returns were possible, because of the higher risks involved in holding equities. Over the long-term, risks were somewhat higher than todays investors seem to remember, but they were hardly severe enough to justify the kind of performance spreads that existed during much of the twentieth century.

True, if you bought at inopportune times, it was possible to remain in a fairly deep hole for a fairly long time. But, if you gave no real consideration to the timing of your purchases or the prospects of the underlying enterprises, you did better than many bondholders who chose their investments with the utmost care.

This is a disconcerting problem. It may be that most investors are overly sensitive to the risk of an immediate paper loss in nominal terms, and therefore overlook the much greater risk of a gradual loss of purchasing power. Issuing fixed pound obligations may be the best bet for any business or government that seeks to swindle investors.

For the sake of the common stockholders, I hope many of the best businesses continue to issue such obligations when money is cheap. Corporate debt gets a bad name, because it tends to be overused by those who dont need it and shouldnt want it (and, of course, by those businesses that do need it but won’t survive even if they get it). The businesses that would benefit the most from the use of debt usually appear to have more cash than they could ever need. But, its best to think ahead. For truly high quality businesses, the cost of capital will fluctuate far more wildly than the likely returns on capital.

If, during the last hundred years, stocks really were far cheaper than they should have been, is there any reason to believe stock prices will return to past levels? The past is often a pretty good predictor of the future but, not always. Its difficult to say whether, over the next few decades, valuations will, on average, be higher or lower than they are today. However, it isnt all that difficult to say whether, at some point over the next few decades, valuations will be higher or lower than they are today. The answer to that question is almost certainly yes. They will be higher and they will be lower. Maybe for a few years or a few months. Maybe for a full decade. I dont know.

What I do know is that value investors will have opportunities to make investments with a true margin of safety. But, should they wait?

Thats the most difficult question. Today, I am not finding opportunities that look particularly attractive when compared to the best opportunities of past years. But, I am still able to find a few (in fact, a very few) situations where the expected annual rate of return is greater than 15%.

That will be more than enough to beat the market. It will also likely be enough to provide a material increase in after-tax purchasing power. Thats not guaranteed, but it hardly seems holding cash would offer the better odds in this regard.

So, is an expected annual rate of return of 15% good enough? Is it reasonable to bet on the good opportunity that is currently available instead of waiting for the great opportunity that may yet become available?

Ill leave that for you to decide.

Stocks And Shares – How To Trade Profitably In A Bear Market

Trading in a bull market is easier than trading in a bear market. Many traders find they can make money trading in bullish markets, but when there is a major correction underway or when the market is bearish, they literally freeze and are unable to trade successfully or find profits in their trading.

First,when a market has collapsed, it is important to accept the fact that the market trend has changed from bullish to bearish. It is human nature to find scapegoats or to find a reason or to rationalise away the fact that the market trend has changed. But unless the trader accepts the fact that he is solely responsible to trade his way out of a bearish market, he will find his position untenable and discover losses that add up daily as the market bearish sentiments continue. It does not pay to refuse the responsibility of your own trading action and put the blame on your broker or your friend who has given you the “tips” that led to your losses.

If you are faced with losses from a sudden collapse in prices, accept that it is your responsibility to now institute action to get out of this situation with profits.

Secondly, while in bullish markets it is easy to trade by just buying stocks that are in initial outbreaks and just holding them and coming back again after a few days to reap profits, you cannot do the same during bearish markets.

In bullish markets, you trade with the trend, and as long as the trend is up, you stand to make easy profits. On the contrary, in bearish markets, the market goes into consolidation, and trends are shorter in duration or the market will go into a sideways direction, with prices oscillating between ranges. During bearish markets, we are more biased towards range trading rather than trend trading. So if you do not know how to change from using trend trading to range trading, you can be caught with short term trend changes and suffer whipsaws and lose money trend trading during bearish markets.

Dealing with traders who have gone through a series of major market corrections since 1987 has led me to conclude that there is no room for lackadaisical trading during bearish markets. The margin of error for a trading signal is much lower when trading in a bearish market. I have seen traders who are able to quickly change or adapt from longer trend trading to trading shorter swings in the market or range trading to be able to make money from their trades. In bearish markets, they are contented with smaller profits, but trading more often and in higher volumes. To aid in their margin of profits, they are able to negotiate the lowest brokerage terms possible with their brokers or to use discounted online trading platforms.

In bearish markets, the trader who range trade will be the one who is best positioned to take advantage of the shorter and faster rebounds that occur as stocks get oversold and retrace upwards. Accepting personal responsibility and adapting to range trading will improve his chances to make money during bearish markets.

Stocks -A Winning Way To Scan For Stocks That Are In Uptrends

With thousands of stocks listed in the stock exchange for trading, how does a trader go about his stock selection? I am not refering to the fundamental approach where the trader studies the fundamentals of the company, and research the performance results of the company, check its price-earnings ratios or check its balance sheets and turnover and its dividend yield.

By and large among those successful traders who really make their living off by trading professionally in the stock markets, their preferred method seems to be the technical analysis approach.

By this, they use charting, and technical indicators applied to the stocks. They will devise filters or explorations, to scan for stocks that meet some selected indicators to show that the stocks are beginning to move or have started to move.

Professional traders who trade for a living have an array of trading tools to help them, but one of the most common tools they use to good effect is the indicator called On Balance Volume.

Popularised by Joseph Granville, the On Balance Volume or OBV in short is actually cumulative volume, where the underlying principle is that similar OBV should support equivalent price. By using this indicator, short term traders will be able to identify when there is a difference in this setting, or where OBV has outbreak already but price has still lagged behind, giving rise to the situation where an impending price jump is expected.

But how large is the impending jump? If there is indeed an OBV outbreak, and by inference the price should follow in the next few trading sessions, one must also ensure that the impending jump is of sufficient size to warrant a good margin of profit attractive enough for him to trade.

Added to this trading indicator, traders add yet another trading stipulation to nail those giant moves. We know in Elliot wave theory that the 3 and 5 waves of any stock are the impulsive and strong waves up.

I have seen much success from traders who scan their stocks with an OBV outbreak and are in their impulsive 3 and 5th waves which are their longest and strongest waves.

Armed with this understanding, when a stock is found to have just undergone an OBV Outbreak upwards and is moving within either its 3rd or 5th wave, you have an excellent candidate that will probably run away in price, and letting you reap a handsome profit within a short trading period.

Most of us have heard of stock indexes, but have only a fuzzy idea of them at best. This article aims to clarify some of the basics of stock indexes — what they are and how they work.

What Is A Stock Index?

A stock index is simply an average price for a large group of stocks, either those on a particular stock exchange or stocks across an entire investing sector. Indexes are formed from stocks with something in common: they are on the same exchange, from the same industry, or have the same company size or location. Stock indexes give us an overall snapshot of the economic health of a particular industry or exchange.

Many stock indexes exist; in the United States the most well known are: the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the New York Stock Exchange Composite index, and the Standard & Poor 500 Composite Stock Price Index.

How Does It Work?

There are several ways to calculate an index. An index based solely on stock prices is called a “price weighted index.” This type of index ignores the importance of any particular stock or the company size.

A “market value weighted” index, on the other hand, takes into account the size of the companies involved. That way, price shifts of small companies have less influence than those of larger companies.

Another type of index is the “market share weighted” index. This type of index is based on the number of shares, rather than their total value.

Index As Investment Tool

Another huge function of indexes is that they can function as investment instruments in and of themselves. Mutual funds based on an index duplicate the holdings of the underlying index. Thus, if index A rises by 1%, the Index A Mutual Fund rises by 1%. This has the tremendous advantage of lower costs. Plus these index funds have been shown to generally outperform managed funds.

The Big Indexes

One of the best-known indexes in the world is the Dow Jones Industrial Average. It is a “price-weighted average” index composed of the stocks of 30 of the most influential companies in America. Some feel that 30 companies are not enough to form an accurate assessment for so influential a measurement, but it is reported around the globe daily nevertheless.

The Standard & Poor 500 Index is based on 500 United States corporations, carefully chosen to represent a broader picture of economic activity.

Beyond the United States, the most influential index is the FTSE 100 Index, based on 100 of the largest companies on the London Stock Exchange. It is 1 of the most important indexes in Europe. 2 other important indexes are France’s CAC 40 and Japan’s Nikkei 225.

No matter whether you’re a seasoned investor or a novice at the stock-trading game, there’s a popular option that may suit your portfolio-offering the stability of proven performers you know, plus the growth potential of innovative companies you may not have heard of yet. It also has additional benefits like low costs and tax efficiency.

QQQ-the trade name for the NASDAQ-100 Index Tracking Stock (NASDAQ: QQQQ)-is a type of investment product known as an exchange traded fund (ETF). With a trading volume averaging 99.7 million shares per day, it is the most actively traded, listed equity security in the U.S.*

Active investors appreciate the simplicity and liquidity of trading a basket of stocks in a single transaction. Long-term investors appreciate that the fund is based on NASDAQ’s 100 largest non-financial companies and diversified across sectors. The investment covers a range of industries, including computer hardware and software, telecommunications retailwholesale trade, biotechnology and transportation, with a simple purchase of a single stock.

Additionally, QQQ is eligible for 401(k) and IRA investments, making it attractive for a long-term buy-and-hold investment strategy. And because QQQ represents the collective performance of these companies, the impact of price fluctuations caused by a specific company is another reason QQQ is also attractive.

Direct Purchases

For the first time, investors who purchase the same pound amount of shares at regular intervals can have direct access to an ETF such as QQQ. QQQDirect is an affordable online investing service that provides one plan purchase of QQQ per month free of any charge. It is a fractional share, pound-based service that allows as little as 10.00 per month to be invested with QQQDirect’s AutoVest Schedule.

“NASDAQ has played a significant role in the equification of America and QQQDirect is yet another way we can break down barriers to stock ownership,” said NASDAQ Global Funds CEO John Jacobs. “By buying a single share of QQQ, pound-cost average investors will own a portfolio of NASDAQ’s industry-leading companies-including the likes of Microsoft, Starbucks and Dell.”

“We believe this new service expands the ability of investors to make sound investment decisions,” said John Markese, president of the American Association of Individual Investors (AAII). “As an advocate of investor education and empowerment, AAII views the introduction of QQQDirect as a new, cost-efficient opportunity for individuals to practice the principles of sound investing.”

Most of the buying and selling on the stock market is handled by stock brokers on behalf of their clients, who are the investors. Many different types of brokerage services are available.

Full-Service Brokers

“Full-service brokers” offer a variety of ways to help clients meet their investment goals. These brokers can give advice about which stocks to buy and sell, and often have large research departments that analyze market trends and predict stock movements, for their clients.

Such services are not free, of course. Full-service brokers charge the highest commission rates in the industry. Your decision whether to use a full-service broker will depend on your level of self-confidence, your knowledge of the stock market, and the number of trades you make regularly.

Discount Brokers

Investors who wish to save on commission fees generally use discount brokers. Brokers in this category charge much lower commissions, but they don’t offer advice or analysis. Investors who prefer to make their own trading decisions, and those who trade often rely on discount brokers for their transactions.

Online Brokers

Taking the discount concept 1 step further, online brokers are the least expensive way to trade stocks. Both full-service and discount brokers usually offer discounts for orders placed online. Some brokers operate exclusively online, and they offer the best rates of all.

Account Requirements

Whichever type of broker you choose, your first order of business will be to open an account. Minimum balance requirements vary among brokers, but it is usually between 500 and 1000. If you’re shopping for a broker, read the fine print about all the fees involved. You’ll find that some brokers charge an annual maintenance fee while others charge fees whenever your account balance falls below a minimum.

Cash Or Margin?

Brokerage accounts come in 2 basic types. The “cash account” offers no credit; when you buy, you pay the full stock price. With a “margin account,” on the other hand, you can buy stock on margin, meaning the brokerage will carry some of the cost. The amount of margin varies from broker to broker, but the margin must be covered by the value of the client’s portfolio.

Any time a portfolio falls below a specified value, the investor will have to add funds or sell some stock. A greater opportunity exists for realizing gains (and losses) with margin accounts, because they allow investors to buy more stock with less cash. Involving greater risk than cash accounts, as they do, margin accounts are not recommended for inexperienced traders.

Selecting The Right Broker For You

You should carefully consider your needs as an investor before making the choice of a broker. Do you wish to receive advice about which stocks to buy? Are you uncomfortable making trades on the Internet? If so, you will be best served by a full-service broker. If you are comfortable buying on the Internet, and you have the knowledge and confidence to make your own trading decisions, then you will be better off with an online discount broker.

After deciding which type of broker you want, do some comparison-shopping between competitors. Significant cost differences can show up when you factor in all the annual fees and brokerage rates. Estimate how many trades you expect to make in a year, how much cash you can deposit into your account, whether you want to use margin accounts, and which services you need. Armed with this information, you’ll be prepared to compare your actual costs for various brokers, and to make an educated choice.