Ideal investments for a recent college grad with very high risk tolerance?
"You have a high risk tolerance? Then learn about exchange traded options, and futures. Or the variety of markets that governments have decided that people without high income are too stupid to invest in, not even kidding. It appears that a lot of this discussion about your risk profile and investing has centered around ""stocks"" and ""bonds"". The similarities being that they are assets issued by collections of humans (corporations), with risk profiles based on the collective decisions of those humans. That doesn't even scratch the surface of the different kinds of asset classes to invest in. Bonds? boring. Bond futures? craziness happening over there :) Also, there are potentially very favorable tax treatments for other asset classes. For instance, you mentioned your desire to hold an investment for over a year for tax reasons... well EVERY FUTURES TRADE gets that kind of tax treatment (partially), whether you hold it for one day or more, see the 60/40 rule. A rebuttal being that some of these asset classes should be left to professionals. Stocks are no different in that regards. Either educate yourself or stick with the managed 401k funds." If you're sure you want to go the high risk route: You could consider hot stocks or even bonds for companies/countries with lower credit ratings and higher risk. I think an underrated cost of investing is the tax penalties that you pay when you win if you aren't using a tax advantaged account. For your speculating account, you might want to open a self-directed IRA so that you can get access to more of the high risk options that you crave without the tax liability if any of those have a big payout. You want your high-growth money to be in a Roth, because it would be a shame to strike it rich while you're young and then have to pay taxes on it when you're older. If you choose not to make these investments in a tax-advantaged account, try to hold your stocks for a year so you only get taxed at capital gains rates instead of as ordinary income. If you choose to work for a startup, buy your stock options as they vest so that if the company goes public or sells privately, you will have owned those stocks long enough to qualify for capital gains. If you want my actual advice about what I think you should do: I would increase your 401k percentage to at least 10% with or without a match, and keep that in low cost index funds while you're young, but moving some of those investments over to bonds as you get closer to retirement and your risk tolerance declines. Assuming you're not in the 25% tax bracket, all of your money should be in a Roth 401k or IRA because you can withdraw it without being taxed when you retire.  The more money you put into those accounts now while you are young, the more time it all has to grow. The real risk of chasing the high-risk returns is that when you bet wrong it will set you back far enough that you will lose the advantage that comes from investing the money while you're young. You're going to have up and down years with your self-selected investments, why not just keep plugging money into the S&P which has its ups and downs, but has always trended up over time? If you have been putting savings away for the longer term and have some extra funds which you would like to take some extra risk on - then I say work yourself out a strategy/plan, get yourself educated and go for it. If it is individual shares you are interested then work out if you prefer to use fundamental analysis, technical analysis or some of both. You can use fundamental analysis to help determine which shares to buy, and then use technical analysis to help determine when to get into and out of a position. You say you are prepared to lose $10,000 in order to try to get higher returns. I don't know what percentage this $10,000 is of the capital you intend to use in this kind of investments/trading, but lets assume it is 10% - so your total starting capital would be $100,000. The idea now would be to learn about money management, position sizing and risk management. There are plenty of good books on these subjects. If you set a maximum loss for each position you open of 1% of your capital - i.e $1,000, then you would have to get 10 straight losses in a row to get to your 10% total loss. You do this by setting stop losses on your positions. I'll use an example to explain: Say you are looking at a stock priced at $20 and you get a signal to buy it at that price. You now need to determine a stop price which if the stock goes down to, you can say well I may have been wrong on this occasion, the stock price has gone against me so I need to get out now (I put automatic stop loss conditional orders with my broker). You may determine the stop price based on previous support levels, using a percentage of your buy price or another indicator or method. I tend to use the percentage of buy price - lets say you use 10% - so your stop price would be at $18 (10% below your buy price of $20). So now you can work out your position size (the number of shares to buy). Your maximum loss on the position is $2 per share or 10% of your position in this stock, but it should also be only 1% of your total capital - being 1% of $100,000 = $1,000. You simply divide $1,000 by $2 to get 500 shares to buy.  You then do this with the rest of your positions - with a $100,000 starting capital using a 1% maximum loss per position and a stop loss of 10% you will end up with a maximum of 10 positions. If you use a larger maximum loss per position your position sizes would increase and you would have less positions to open (I would not go higher than 2% maximum loss per position). If you use a larger stop loss percentage then your position sizes would decrease and you would have more positions to open. The larger the stop loss the longer you will potentially be in a position and the smaller the stop loss generally the less time you will be in a position. Also as your total capital increases so will your 1% of total capital, just as it would decrease if your total capital decreases. Using this method you can aim for higher risk/ higher return investments and reduce and manage your risk to a desired level. One other thing to consider, don't let tax determine when you sell an investment. If you are keeping a stock just so you will pay less tax if kept for over 12 months - then you are in real danger of increasing your risk considerably. I would rather pay 50% tax on a 30% return than 25% tax on a 15% return. Congratulations on being in this position. Your problem - which I think that you identified - is that you don't know much about investing. My recommendation is that you start with three goals: The Motley Fool (www.fool.com) has a lot of good information on their site. Their approach may or may not align with what you want to do; I've subscribed to their newsletters for quite a while and have found them useful. I'm what is known as a value investor; I like to make investments and hold them for a long time. Others have different philosophies. For the second goal, it's very important to follow the money and ask how people get paid in the investment business. The real money in Wall Street is made not by investment, but by charging money to those who are in the investment business. There are numerous people in line for some of your money in return for service or advice; fees for buying/selling stocks, fees for telling you which stocks to buy/sell, fees for managing your money, etc. You can invest without spending too much on fees if you understand how the system works.  For the third goal, I recommend choosing a few stocks, and creating a virtual portfolio. You can then then get used to watching and tracking your investments. If you want a place to put your money while you do this, I'd start with an S&P 500 index fund with a low expense ratio, and I'd buy it through a discount broker (I use Scottrade but there are a number of choices).  Hope that helps. "I'd suggest you start by looking at the mutual fund and/or ETF options available via your bank, and see if they have any low-cost funds that invest in high-risk sectors.  You can increase your risk (and potential returns) by allocating your assets to riskier sectors rather than by picking individual stocks, and you'll be less likely to make an avoidable mistake. It is possible to do as you suggest and pick individual stocks, but by doing so you may be taking on more risk than you suspect, even unnecessary risk.  For instance, if you decide to buy stock in Company A, you know you're taking a risk by investing in just one company.  However, without a lot of work and financial expertise, you may not be able to assess how much risk you're taking by investing in Company A specifically, as opposed to Company B.  Even if you know that investing in individual stocks is risky, it can be very hard to know how risky those particular individual stocks are, compared to other alternatives. This is doubly true if the investment involves actions more exotic than simply buying and holding an asset like a stock.  For instance, you could definitely get plenty of risk by investing in commercial real estate development or complicated options contracts; but a certain amount of work and expertise is required to even understand how to do that, and there is a greater likelihood that you will slip up and make a costly mistake that negates any extra gain, even if the investment itself might have been sound for someone with experience in that area.  In other words, you want your risk to really be the risk of the investment, not the ""personal"" risk that you'll make a mistake in a complicated scheme and lose money because you didn't know what you were doing.  (If you do have some expertise in more exotic investments, then maybe you could go this route, but I think most people -- including me -- don't.) On the other hand, you can find mutual funds or ETFs that invest in large economic sectors that are high-risk, but because the investment is diversified within that sector, you need only compare the risk of the sectors.  For instance, emerging markets are usually considered one of the highest-risk sectors.  But if you restrict your choice to low-cost emerging-market index funds, they are unlikely to differ drastically in risk (at any rate, far less than individual companies).  This eliminates the problem mentioned above: when you choose to invest in Emerging Markets Index Fund A, you don't need to worry as much about whether Emerging Markets Index Fund B might have been less risky; most of the risk is in the choice to invest in the emerging markets sector in the first place, and differences between comparable funds in that sector are small by comparison.  You could do the same with other targeted sectors that can produce high returns; for instance, there are mutual funds and ETFs that invest specifically in technology stocks. So you could begin by exploring the mutual funds and ETFs available via your existing investment bank, or poke around on Morningstar.  Fees will still matter no matter what sector you're in, so pay attention to those.  But you can probably find a way to take an aggressive risk position without getting bogged down in the details of individual companies.  Also, this will be less work than trying something more exotic, so you're less likely to make a costly mistake due to not understanding the complexities of what you're investing in." Theoretically there is limited demand for risky investments, so higher-risk asset classes should outperform lower-risk asset classes over sufficiently long time periods. In practice, I believe this is true, but it could be several decades before a risky portfolio starts to outperform a more conservative one. Stocks are considered more risky than most assets. Small-cap stocks and emerging market stocks are particularly high-risk. I would consider low-fee ETFs in these areas, like VB or VWO. If you want to seek out the absolute riskiest investments, you could pick individual stocks of companies in dire financial situations, as Bank of America was a couple years ago. Most importantly, if you don't expect to need the money soon, I would maximize your contribution to tax-advantaged accounts since they will grow exponentially faster than taxable accounts. Over 50 years, a 401(k) or IRA will generally grow at least 50% more than a taxable account, maybe more depending on the tax-efficiency of your investments. Try to contribute the maximum ($17,500 for most people in 2014) if you can. If you can save more than that, I'd suggest contributing a Roth 401k rather than a traditional 401(k) - since Roth contributions are post-tax, the effective contribution limit is higher. Also contribute to a Roth IRA (up to $5,500 in 2014), using a backdoor Roth if necessary. An ideal investment for a highly risk tolerant college grad with a background in software and programming, is a software company. That's because it's the kind of investment that you will be able to judge better than most other people, including yours truly. Hopefully, one day the software company for a highly risk tolerant investor will be your own.(Ask Bill Gates or even Michael Dell, although the latter was more involved in hardware.) I am in a very similar situation as you (software engineer, high disposable income). Maximize your contributions to all tax-advantaged accounts first. From those accounts you can choose to invest in high risk funds. At your age and date-target funds will invest in riskier investments on your behalf; and they'll do it while avoiding the 30%+/- haircut that you'll be paying in taxes anyhow. If, after that, you're looking for bigger risk plays then look into a brokerage account that will let you buy and sell options. These are big risk swingers and they are sophisticated, complicated products which are used by many people who likely understand finance far better than you. You can make money with them but you should consider it akin to gambling. It might be more to your liking to maintain a long position in a stock and then trade options against your long position. Start with trading covered calls, then you could consider buying options (defined limited downside risk). Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Ethereum. Then check their prices daily. With daily price swings of over 10% (both up and down) being a common occurrence, you'll quickly learn how high your risk tolerance really is. :) A lot of IT people believe that cryptocurrencies will stay. Whether Bitcoin or Ethereum will be among them is anyone's guess. Compare to the Dotcom boom, which will be Amazon.com and which will be Pets.com? Sorry to be boring but you have the luxury of time and do not need high-risk investments. Just put the surplus cash into a diversified blue-chip fund, sit back, and enjoy it supporting you in 50 years time. Your post makes me think you're implicitly assuming that since you have a very high risk tolerance you ought to be able to earn spectacular returns. Unfortunately the risks involved are extremely difficult to quantify and there's no guarantee they're fairly discounted. Most people would intuitively realise betting on 100-1 horses is a losing proposition but not realise just how bad it is. In reality far fewer than one in a thousand 100-1 shots actually win.
The 'standard' in such moving average crossover systems is 50/200. The numbers are essentially arbitrary as long as the long term average is greater than the short term and there is some different between the averages in terms of the smoothing they provide (i.e. comparing a 74 day MA to a 75 day MA isn't what the system is intended for) There are plenty of software programs that will let you run through many possible values for the system over historical data. I concur with the other answers in that this system/indicator alone isn't very good. However, I disagree with their blanket brushing off of technical analysis. There are many successful traders out there. The moving average cross over system is perhaps the second most primitive example of technical strategies categorized as trend following systems (buying new recent highs and selling new recent lows being the most simple). This particular system isn't very powerful because of its poor use of simple moving averages. A simple moving average is intended to smooth out data, but smoothing comes at the cost of lagging from the present. A simple moving average essentially gives you an idealized smoothing of price action for the day at that is one half of their period ago. So your 200 day simple moving average shows you an idealized smoothing of price action 100 days ago. A lot can happen in 100 days and that is why this system is far from ideal. Recent MBA grad here.  I would much rather work at a job that makes me happy than a job that pays more.  With that said, I'm feeling pressure to earn a fairly high salary to pay off all the student loans.  I will probably spend a few years trying to find a balance between happiness and salary and then completely forget about salary after my loans are paid off. "Here are some things to consider if you want to employ a covered call strategy for consistent returns. The discussion also applies to written puts, as they're functionally equivalent. Write covered calls only on fairly valued stock. If the stock is distinctly undervalued, just buy it. By writing the call, you cap the gains that it will achieve as the stock price gravitates to intrinsic value. If the stock is overvalued, sell it, or just stay away. As the owner of a covered call position, you have full exposure to the downside of the stock. The premium received is normally way too small to protect against much of a drop in price. The ideal candidate doesn't change in price much over the life of the position. Yes, this is low volatility, which brings low option premiums. As a seller you want high premiums. But this can't be judged in a vacuum. No matter how high the volatility in absolute terms, as a seller you're betting the market has overpriced volatility. If volatility is high, so premiums are fat, but the market is correct, then the very real risk of the stock dropping over the life of the position offsets the premium received. One thing to look at is current implied volatility for the at-the-money (ATM), near-month call. Compare it to the two-year historical volatility (Morningstar has this conveniently displayed). Moving away from pure volatility, consider writing calls about three months out, just slightly out of the money. The premium is all time value, and the time value decay accelerates in the final few months. (In theory, a series of one-month options would be higher time value, but there are frictional costs, and no guarantee that today's ""good deal"" will be repeatable twelve time per year.) When comparing various strikes and expirations, compare time value per day. To compare the same statistic across multiple companies, use time value per day as a percent of capital at risk. CaR is the price of the stock less the premium received. If you already own the stock, track it as if you just bought it for this strategy, so use the price on the day you wrote the call. Along with time value per day, compare the simple annualized percent return, again, on capital at risk, measuring the return if a) the stock is called away, and b) the stock remains unchanged. I usually concentrate more on the second scenario, as we get the capital gain on the stock regardless, without the option strategy. Ideally, you can also calculate the probability (based on implied volatility) of the stock achieving these price points by expiration. Measuring returns at many possible stock prices, you can develop an overall expected return. I won't go into further detail, as it seems outside the scope here. Finally, I usually target a minimum of 25% annualized if the stock remains unchanged. You can, of course, adjust this up or down depending on your risk tolerance. I consider this to be conservative." Hello all, Ive recently accepted a job at one of the big banks as a marketer. Ideally this role leads to becoming a financial advisor. I was wondering if there is anyone here has experience with that career path-starting as a marketer and becoming an FA- and if it was worth doing it over going to grad school or whatever other career interests you had. Also, what were your hours like when you first started? Ive heard horror stories about people coming in before 7 and staying after 7... Vanguard might be the top provider of no-load mutual funds around.  Attempting to do better than 0.13% in fees is just as likely to cost you more time than the money you're attempting to say.  You're in your first job out of school--you've got better things to do with your time. The safest investment is probably a money market fund [originally I said a TIPS fund but they appear to be riskier than I had thought].  But you might not want to invest everything there because the returns are not going to be great.  High returns come with high risk. The best portfolio has some percentage (which may be 0) of your money in a safe asset like a money market and some in a risky portfolio (this percentage may also be zero for some people).  You should consult your own risk aversion and decide how much money to put in each.  If you are super risk-averse, put almost all of it in the money market.  If you want a little more return, put more of it in the risky portfolio.  This is a fundamental result of finance theory. What's the risky asset?  A fully diversified portfolio of bonds and stocks.  People don't agree on exactly what the weights should be.  The rule of thumb back in the day was 60% stock and 40% bonds.  These days lots of financial planners recommend 120 minus your age in stock and the rest in bonds.  But no one really knows what the perfect weights in the risky portfolio should be (the rules of thumb I just gave have little or no theoretical foundation) so you have to choose for yourself what you think makes sense. High risk, high reward doesn't really mean anything. The reason that investments are risky is that the investor is clueless. As you gain more information and experience, you reduce the risk. To answer your question, you can consider BRIC ETF's (Brazil, Russia, India and China). They are correlated to the U.S. economy. However, over the long term (say, 40 years), they may make sense. It depends on your outlook. Do you think India and China will have bigger economies in than the U.S. in 40 years? Many people do. Do you think that countries that are rich in commodity resources like oil will do well in the next 5 years? If so, then those countries may do better than the U.S. It's not a clear answer to your question, but maybe it can help lead to a good solution for you. A safe investment would be to get a 5-year CD from Ally Bank.  No minimum deposit and no monthly maintenance fees.  1.74% APY at the moment.  I would choose a 5-year CD since the early withdrawal penalty is only 60 days interest, which will be negligible for a $100 investment and increasing the term significantly increases your interest rate. Regarding other suggestions: Even if you find a way purchase stock commission free, it will probably cost a $5-$10 commission to sell, wiping out probably a year or two of gains.  Also, I-Bonds must be held for a year minimum, which is problematic. At the end of the day, it's probably not really worth your time to do any of these.  $2 a year or $5 a year, it's still fairly insignificant and your time is surely worth more than that.