Would betting on fallen (blue chip) stocks be a good strategy?
"You can't do this automatically; you want to understand whether the drop is from a short-term high. is likely to be a short-term low, or reflects an actual change in how folks expect the company to do in the future. Having said that, some people do favor a strategy which resembles this, betting on what are known as ""the dogs of the Dow"" in the assumption that they're well trusted but not as strongly sought and therefore perhaps not bid up as strongly. I have no opinion on it; I'm just mentioning it for comparison."
There are several ways to protect against (or even profit from) a market correction. Hedge funds do this by hedging, that is, buying a stock that they think is strong and selling short a paired stock that is weak. If you hold, say, a strong retail company in your portfolio, you might sell short an equal weight of a weak retail company.  These are like buying insurance on your portfolio. If you own 300 shares of XYZ, currently trading at $68, you buy puts at a level at a strike price that lets you sleep at night. For example, you might buy 3 XYZ 6-month puts with a strike price of $60. A disadvantage is that the puts are wasting assets, that is, their time premium (which you paid for at the outset) becomes zero at expiration. (This is why it is like insurance. You wouldn't complain that your insurance premium was lost when you purchase insurance on your house and the house doesn't burn down, would you? Of course not. The purpose of the insurance is to protect your investment.) Note that as these puts are married, they only protect your portfolio. Instead of profiting from a correction, you would merely protect your portfolio during a correction. (No small feat!) If your portfolio is similar to the market, you can buy S&P index puts. If your market reflects a lot of technology, you can buy technology sector puts.  Say you have a portfolio of $80K that reflects the market. You could buy out-of-the-market puts (again reflecting your tolerance for loss). Any losses in your portfolio after the puts go in-the-money would be (more or less) offset by gains in the puts.  An advantage is that the bid/ask spread is smaller for the S&P. You would pay less for the protection. Also, the S&P puts are cash settled (meaning you get money put in your account on the business day after expiration day). A disadvantage is that the puts do not linearly go up as the market drops. (Delta hedging is a big deal in and of itself.) Another disadvantage is that they are wasting assets (see the Married puts section, previous). While the S&P puts can be used to maintain your market portfolio in the midst of a correction, you could purchase more puts than needed. If you had correctly timed the market, then your portfolio with puts would increase. (Your mileage may vary; some have predicted an imminent market crash way too often.) Collars involve selling out-of-the-money calls and using the premiums to buy out-of-the-money puts. There are many varieties of collars, but the most straightforward is to sell 1 call and buy 1 put for every 100 shares. (This can also be done for index puts and calls.) This has the effect of simultaneously: You get your insurance for almost free. But again, it is protecting your portfolio.  As the name implies, you make money when the market goes bearish.  Bear put spreads involve buying puts at a close strike price and selling an equal number of puts at a lower strike price than the first. You have a defined maximum loss (the premium you paid for the higher put minus the premium you received for the lower put). You have a defined maximum gain (the difference between strikes minus the defined maximum loss).  Buy S&P 500 index puts. If you buy deep out-of-the-money puts, it won't cost much, but you have little probability of it paying off. But if they go in-the-money, there could be a sizable payoff. This is similar to putting one chip on red 18 on the roulette wheel. But rather than paying off 35:1, it is a variable payoff. If you're $1 in the money, you just get $100. If you're $12 in the money, you have a $1200 payoff.  If you buy at-the-money puts, it will cost a lot, and your probability will be about 1 in 2 that you will pay off. In our roulette analogy, this is like putting 30 chips on the Even bet of the roulette wheel. The variable payoff is as in the previous paragraph. But you're more likely to get a payoff. And you will lose it all of the roulette ball lands on an Odd number, 0, or 00. (That is, the underlying of your put goes up or stays the same.) If your research shows you what good stocks to buy, it may also tell you which stocks are ripe for a fall. You could short-sell these stocks or buy puts on them.  Similar to short-selling stocks or buying puts, you could sell short overpriced sectors or buy puts on them. There are ETFs that will allow you benefit from falling prices without needing to have a margin agreement or options agreement in place.  Sorry to have a lengthy answer. Many other answers emphasize that one shouldn't try to time the market. But that is not the OP's question. Provided here are both: Try and bring with you a folder full of evidence about your skills and accomplishments, many of the top blue chip companies do what's called evidence-based interviewing and it means you provide evidence to back up your assertions about how great you are. So for example, the interviewer asks how you get on with your colleagues and you provide an email thanking you for being a great team player, or they ask you about research and you show them a piece of research you did. Of course this is harder when you go for your first job, but bring what you can. As an alternative and/or alongside this you can use stories (as someone else said) as a kind of evidence if you don't have any physical evidence. Your story should show systematically how you handled a situation to get a good outcome.  If they are a very conservative company they will want you to show that although you can kind of think outside the box, you are not prone to emotional reactions or knee-jerk responses and everything you do is carefully thought out and wouldn't bring them into disrepute if it got covered on the front page of a newspaper.  Good luck. "The amount, reliability and frequency of dividends paid by an ETF other than a stock, such as an index or mutual fund, is a function of the agreement under which the ETF was established by the managing or issuing company (or companies), and the ""basket"" of investments that a share in the fund represents.  Let's say you invest in a DJIA-based index fund, for instance Dow Diamonds (DIA), which is traded on several exchanges including NASDAQ and AMEX. One share of this fund is currently worth $163.45 (Jan 22 2014 14:11 CDT) while the DJIA itself is $16,381.38 as of the same time, so one share of the ETF represents approximately 1% of the index it tracks. The ETF tracks the index by buying and selling shares of the blue chips proportional to total invested value of the fund, to maintain the same weighted percentages of the same stocks that make up the index. McDonald's, for instance, has an applied weight that makes the share price of MCD stock roughly 5% of the total DJIA value, and therefore roughly 5% of the price of 100 shares of DIA. Now, let's say MCD issued a dividend to shareholders of, say, $.20 per share. By buying 100 shares of DIA, you own, through the fund, approximately five MCD shares, and would theoretically be entitled to $1 in dividends. However, keep in mind that you do not own these shares directly, as you would if you spent $16k buying the correct percentage of all the shares directly off the exchange. You instead own shares in the DIA fund, basically giving you an interest in some investment bank that maintains a pool of blue-chips to back the fund shares. Whether the fund pays dividends or not depends on the rules under which that fund was set up. The investment bank may keep all the dividends itself, to cover the expenses inherent in managing the fund (paying fund management personnel and floor traders, covering losses versus the listed price based on bid-ask parity, etc), or it may pay some percentage of total dividends received from stock holdings. However, it will virtually never transparently cut you a check in the amount of your proportional holding of an indexed investment as if you held those stocks directly. In the case of the DIA, the fund pays dividends monthly, at a yield of 2.08%, virtually identical to the actual weighted DJIA yield (2.09%) but lower than the per-share mean yield of the ""DJI 30"" (2.78%). Differences between index yields and ETF yields can be reflected in the share price of the ETF versus the actual index; 100 shares of DIA would cost $16,345 versus the actual index price of 16,381.38, a delta of $(36.38) or -0.2% from the actual index price. That difference can be attributed to many things, but fundamentally it's because owning the DIA is not the exact same thing as owning the correct proportion of shares making up the DJIA. However, because of what index funds represent, this difference is very small because investors expect to get the price for the ETF that is inherent in the real-time index." Asset Allocation serves many purposes, not just mitigating risk via a diversification of asset classes, but also allowing you to take a level of risk that is appropriate for a given investor at a given time by how much is allocated to which asset classes. A younger investor with a longer timeframe, may wish to take a lot more risk, investing heavily in equities, and perhaps managed funds that are of the 'aggressive growth' variety, seeking better than market returns. Someone a little older may wish to pull back a bit, especially after a bull market has brought them substantial gains, and begin to 'take money off the table' perhaps by starting to establish some fixed income positions, or pulling back to slightly less risky index,  'value' or 'balanced' funds. An investor who is near or in retirement will generally want even less risk, going to a much more balanced approach with half or more of their investments in fixed income, and the remainder often in income producing 'blue chip' type stocks, or 'income funds'.  This allows them to protect a good amount of their wealth from potential loss at a time when they have to be able to depend on it for a majority of their income. An institution such as Yale has very different concerns, and may always be in a more aggressive 'long term' mode since 'retirement' is not a factor for them.  They are willing to invest mostly in very aggressive ways, using diversification to protect them from one of those choices 'tanking' but still overall taking a pretty high level of risk, much more so than might be appropriate for an individual who will generally need to seek safety and to preserve gains as they get older.  For example look at the PDF that @JLDugger linked, and observe the overall risk level that Yale is taking, and in addition observe the large allocations they make to things like private equity with a 27%+ risk level compared to their very small amount of fixed income with a 10% risk level.  Yale has a very long time horizon and invests in a way that is atypical of the needs and concerns of an individual investor.  They also have as you pointed out, the economy of scale (with something like #17B in assets?) to afford to hire proven experts, and their own internal PHD level experts to watch over the whole thing, all of which very few individual investors have. For either class of investor, diversification, is a means to mitigate risk by not having all your eggs in one basket.  Via having multiple different investments (such as picking multiple individual stocks, or aggressive funds with different approaches, or just an index fund to get multiple stocks) you are protected from being wiped out as might happen if a single choice might fail.  For example imagine what would have happened if you had in 2005 put all your money into a single stock with a company that had been showing record profits  such as Lehman Brothers, and left it there until 2008 when the stock tanked. or even faster collapses such as Enron, etc that all 'looked great' up until shortly after they failed utterly.   Being allocated across multiple asset classes provides some diversification all on it's own, but you can also be diversified within a class. Yale uses the diversification across several asset classes to have lower risk than being invested in a single asset class such as private equity. But their allocation places much more of their funds in high risk classes and much less of their funds in the lowest risk classes such as fixed income. Don't sell. Ever.  Well almost. A number of studies have shown that buying equal amounts of shares randomly will beat the market long term, and certainly won't do badly.  Starting from this premise then perhaps you can add a tiny bit extra with your skill... maybe, but who knows, you might suck.  Point is when buying you have the wind behind you - a monkey would make money. Selling is a different matter. You have the cost of trading out and back in to something else, only to have changed from one monkey portfolio to the other. If you have skill that covers this cost then yes you should do this - but how confident are you? A few studies have been done on anonymised retail broker accounts and they show the same story.  Retail investors on average lose money on their switches. Even if you believe you have a real edge on the market,  you're strategy still should not just say sell when it drops out of your criteria.  Your criteria are positive indicators. Lack of positive is not a negative indicator.  Sell when you would happily go short the stock.   That is you are really confident it is going down. Otherwise leave it. "Sure they work - right until they don't. Explanation: A stock picking strategy based on technical indicators is at worst a mix of random guessing and confirmation bias, which will ""work"" only due to luck.  At best, it exploits a systematic inefficiency of the market. And any such inefficiency will automatically disappear when it is exploited by many traders. If it's published in a book, it is pretty much guaranteed not to work anymore. Oh, and you only get to know in hindsight (if at all) which of the two cases above applies to any given strategy." "If you can afford the time and are looking for more deep, and fun, investment tips, check out http://gurufocus.com. Great for more fundamental analysis of ""Intelligent Investor"" type Benjamin Graham-style businesses.  No use scatter-shooting the stock exchange hoping to find good value businesses. Even blue-chips have an increasingly uncertain future (except IMHO certain world dominators like KO, WMT, XO and MCD)." 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.