Finding Uncorrelated Assets
Have a look at: Diversify Portfolio. The site provides various tools all focused on correlation, diversification and portfolio construction. You can scan through every stock and ETF listed on the NASDAQ and NYSE to find any kind of correlation you're looking for. You can also create a portfolio and then analyze all the correlations within it, or search for specific stocks that can be added to the portfolio based on correlation and various other factors.
"According to what little information is available currently, this fund is most akin to an actively managed exchange traded fund rather than an investment trust. An investment trust is an actively managed, closed-end fund that is tradeable on the stock market.  ""Closed-end"" means that there are a fixed number of shares available for trading, so if you wish to buy or sell shares in a closed-end fund you need to find someone willing to sell or buy shares.  ""Actively managed"" means that the assets are selected by the fund managers in the belief that they will perform well.  This is in contrast to a ""passively managed"" fund which simply tracks an underlying index.   The closed-end nature of investment trusts means that the share price is not well correlated to the value of the underlying assets.  Indeed, almost all UK investment trusts trade at a significant discount to their net asset value.  This reflects their historic poor performance and relatively weak liquidity.  Of course there are some exceptions to this. Examples of open-end funds are unit trust (US = mutual funds) and ETFs (exchange traded funds).  They are ""open-end"" funds in the sense that the number of shares/units available will change according to demand.  Most importantly, the price of a share/unit will be strongly correlated to the net asset value of the underlying portfolio.  In general, for an open-end fund, if the net asset value of the fund is X and there are Y shares/units outstanding, then the price of a share/unit will be X/Y.  Historic data shows that passively managed funds (index trackers) ""always"" outperform actively managed funds in the long term.  One of the big issues with actively managed funds is they have relatively high management fees.  The Peoples Trust will be charging about 1% with a promise that this should come down over time.  Compare this to a fee of 0.05% on a large, major market index tracking ETF.  Further, the 1% headline fee being touted by Peoples Trust is a somewhat misleading, since they are paying their employees bonuses with shares in the fund.  This will cause dilution of the net asset value per share and can be read as addition management fees by proxy.  Since competent fund managers will demand high incomes, bonus shares could easily double the management fees, depending on the size of the fund. In summary, history has shown that the promises of active fund managers rarely (if ever) come to fruition. Personally, I would not consider this to be an attractive investment and would look more towards a passively managed major market index ETF with low management fees." Diversifying your portfolio between asset A and asset B only reduces the portfolio risk if asset A and asset B are not correlated. If they have either a low correlation or a negative correlation to each other, then you benefit from combining them in a portfolio in terms of risk reduction. The standard deviation of returns will be lower in a portfolio of low or uncorrelated assets. If on the other hand you combine two correlated assets into a portfolio you are doubling down on the same assumption, which means you are not reducing your risk. You are also wasting capital because now you have allocated capital to 2 separate trades / investments yet they have shown a high tendency of moving together. Here is an article that discusses this further: Why Diversify your Stock Portfolio So wages for the working class are declining, young people can't find jobs and are over encumbered in school debt, unemployment is really high, yet these fools think they can find a sucker who can afford their overpriced assets?  Good Luck. "The essence of hedging is to find an investment that performs well under the conditions that you're concerned about. If you're concerned about China stock dropping, then find something that goes up in value if that asset class goes down.  Maybe put options on a Chinese index fund, or selling short one of those funds? Or, if you're already ""in the money"" on your Chinese stock position, set a stop loss: instruct your broker to sell if that stock hits X or lower.  That way you keep some gains or limit your losses.  That involves liquidating your position, but if you've had a nice run-up, it may be time to consider selling if you feel that the prospects are dimming." "That's Imbalance-USD (or whatever your default currency is). This is the default ""uncategorized"" account. My question is, is it possible to get the ""unbalanced"" account to zero and eliminate it? Yes, it's possible to get this down to zero, and in fact desirable. Any transactions in there should be reviewed and fixed. You can delete it once you've emptied it, but it will be recreated the next time an unbalanced transaction is entered. Ideally, I figure it should autohide unless there's something in it, but it's a minor annoyance. Presumably you've imported a lot of data into what's known as a transaction account like checking, and it's all going to Imbalance, because it's double entry and it has to go somewhere. Open up the checking account and you'll see they're all going to Imbalance. You'll need to start creating expense, liability and income accounts to direct these into.  Once you've got your history all classified, data entry will be easier. Autocomplete will suggest transactions, and online transaction pull will try to guess which account a given transaction should match with based on that data." Metals and Mining is an interesting special case for stocks.  It's relationship to U.S. equity (SPX) is particularly weak (~0.3 correlation) compared to most stocks so it doesn't behave like equity.  However, it is still stock and not a commodities index so it's relation to major metals (Gold for instance) is not that strong either (-0.6 correlation). Metals and Mining stocks have certainly underperformed the stock market in general over the past 25years 3% vs 9.8% (annualized) so this doesn't look particularly promising.  It did have a spectacularly good 8 year period ('99-'07) though 66% (annualized).  It's worth remembering that it is still stock.  If the market did not think it could make a reasonable profit on the stock the price would decrease until the market thought it could make the same profit as other equity (adjusted slightly for the risk).  So is it reasonable to expect that it would give the same return as other stock on average?  Yes.. -ish.  Though as has been shown in the past 25 years your actual result could vary wildly both positive and negative. (All numbers are from monthly over the last 25 years using VGPMX as a M&M proxy) Use TWIRR (aka TWRR). Time Weighted rate of return. It's sort of the opposite of XIRR. XIRR results change dramatically depending on the timing of the cashflows. It might be useful to also model returns that are unaffected by the timing. This is how funds report returns, and this number allows you to compare to funds and indices. During periods of steady deposits, XIRR will continually understate performance. And in retirement, when you have steady withdrawals, XIRR will overstate. TWRR is talked about here: http://www.dailyvest.com/PRR/prr_calcmethods.aspx#twrr I've made a simple spreadsheet that you can use as a starting point, if you like: http://moosiefinance.com/static/models/spreadsheets.html (top entry in the list) There are lists with Top 1,000 Most and Less correlated stocks for different markets, I think you'll find the solution here:  https://unicornbay.com/tools/most-less-correlated-assets