She's a Savvy Investor

Posts Tagged ‘should’


Posted on November 30, 2011 - by

What areas of business should I study?

I am about to go to college and I want to major in either international business, investing or accounting. I am a person who likes mathematics a lot, likes having fun and at the same time like mysterious things. So far I was thinking of being a Crime Analyst. A Cryme Analyst is someone who applies mathematics into solving crime cases. I love math and want a job that would not stress me out and win good money both at the same time, with a salary of over 80,000. I want to know what career you think would best fit me. What do you think I should study? I am really confused. Please help me!


Posted on November 16, 2011 - by

1 Reason the Street Should Love International Paper’s Earnings

Don’t just count the cash, time it.

View full post on Fool.com: The Motley Fool


Posted on August 26, 2011 - by

Insurance should make up what % of expenses for a business?

I’m doing a case study for my insurance class and we have about a $1.5 million suggested premium for a company that has $33 million in sales and $24 million in expenses. Is this a reasonable amount when compared to sales or should we try to lower it?


Posted on June 25, 2011 - by

Should You Buy and Hold AstraZeneca?

Does this company have the traits of a good retirement stock?

View full post on Fool.com: The Motley Fool


Posted on April 17, 2011 - by

Should You Sell Terra Nitrogen Today?

We’re seeking danger signs among Fools’ most beloved stocks.

View full post on Fool.com: The Motley Fool


Posted on February 11, 2011 - by

Why You Should Invest? | The Importance Of Investment


Why You Should Invest Investing has become increasingly important over the years, as the future of social security benefits becomes unknown. People want to insure their futures, and investing is the answer to the unknowns of the future. Investing is also a way of attaining the things that you want, such as a new home, a college education for your children, or expensive toys. Of course, your financial goals will determine what type of investing you do. If you want or need to make a lot of money fast, you would be more interested in higher risk investing, which will give you a larger return in a shorter amount of time. If you are saving for something in the far off future, such as retirement, you would want to make safer investments that grow over a longer period of time. The overall purpose in investing is to create wealth and security, over a period of time. It is important to remember that you will not always be able to earn an income You will eventually want to retire. You also cannot count on the social security system to do what you expect it to do. You also cannot necessarily depend on your companys retirement plan either. So, again, investing is the key to insuring your own financial future, but you must make smart investments!


Posted on January 29, 2011 - by

Should You Sell Corning Right Now?

We’re seeking danger signs among Fools’ most beloved stocks.

View full post on Fool.com: The Motley Fool


Posted on December 12, 2010 - by

Should You Sell Sohu.com Today?

We’re seeking danger signs among Fools’ most beloved stocks.

View full post on Fool.com: The Motley Fool


Posted on November 1, 2010 - by

Should America invade Iran?

DAVID BRODER is known as the “dean of the Washington press corps”. Long-serving journalists will sometimes gasp, audibly, if you explain that Mr Broder is wrong about this or that basic fact of politics. Think about that and then read his latest column, and you should have a good idea why a healthy public debate over macroeconomic policy is difficult to conduct in America. Mr Broder begins by musing over the state in which Barack Obama has found himself, and then the analysis begins:

The steps that have been ordered so far in Washington have done nothing more than put the brakes on the runaway decline. They have not spurred new growth.

This is untrue. The American economy has now been growing for five consecutive quarters.

But if Obama cannot spur that growth by 2012, he is unlikely to be reelected. The lingering effects of the recession that accompanied him to the White House will probably doom him.

Can Obama harness the forces that might spur new growth? This is the key question for the next two years.

What are those forces? Essentially, there are two. One is the power of the business cycle, the tidal force that throughout history has dictated when the economy expands and when it contracts.

Economists struggle to analyze this, but they almost inevitably conclude that it cannot be rushed and almost resists political command. As the saying goes, the market will go where it is going to go.

I’m not sure that’s a real saying. I’m also not sure what Mr Broder is saying. The business cycle almost resists political command. But that means it doesn’t resist political command? Economists almost inevitably conclude it can’t be rushed. What?

In this regard, Obama has no advantage over any other pol. Even in analyzing the tidal force correctly, he cannot control it.

What else might affect the economy? The answer is obvious, but its implications are frightening. War and peace influence the economy.

Oh god.

Look back at FDR and the Great Depression. What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II.

Here is where Obama is likely to prevail. With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran’s ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.

Oh, this is bad. Set aside that Mr Broder appears to be utterly ignorant of the niceties of academic debate concerning the role of World War II in ending the Depression. Let’s operate within the mental model he’s using. In this model, war ends recessions. Why does he think war ends recessions? Presumably he credits increased government spending for stimulating demand. But that would seemingly work for other kinds of government spending, as well. Why not encourage those, non-killing oriented kinds of spending? The answer would seem to be that Republicans wouldn’t favour it.

Now that seems like a good topic for a column: why do Republicans only favour killing-oriented government spending? But Mr Broder is close to satisfying his word count, now, so that will have to wait for another time. There is one other interesting fact here, which is that the magnitude of various war mobilisation efforts seems to escape Mr Broder’s notice entirely. Mobilisation for multi-theatre, all-out war, including the deployment of millions of Americans, is equivalent to preparations for an attack on Iran. Either Mr Broder thinks that Iran will take a war effort on a par with that for World War II, in which case we might expect him to be a little more sceptical about just whether or not an Iran attack is a good idea (lots of Americans died in World War II!). Or he’s not actually relying on the extent of spending to dig America out of its weak recovery, but instead is imagining war preparations as something like a light switch—on means the economy grows, off not. But if that’s all it is, then why not declare war on some uninhabited island somewhere? Or the moon? Or, you know, ignorance? Then maybe fewer people would be killed! Oh, but right—the Republicans.

He closes:

I am not suggesting, of course, that the president incite a war to get reelected. But the nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century. If he can confront this threat and contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions, he will have made the world safer and may be regarded as one of the most successful presidents in history.

Set aside the high school newspaper quality writing. One of the most respected figures in American opinion journalism is essentially arguing that Iran is the biggest threat to the world and that if Barack Obama therefore attacks it, in the process saving the American economy, he’ll be set alongside Lincoln and Roosevelt in the pantheon of best presidents. He does this without citing any figures, any experts, any published research or analyses. He does this without acknowledging potential trade-offs of the action, including its moral reprehensibility and the possibility that it might not work. He can’t even remember to include a to-be-sure paragraph noting that Mr Obama’s predecessor started wars and yet failed to 1) make the world safer, 2) boost the American economy, 3) become the best president in history, so maybe doing all of that is harder than it looks.

Just as stunning is the audacious provinciality of the argument. Should Europe also start a war in order to fix its economy? And maybe Japan, too? (That’s one thing they haven’t tried in twenty years of stagnation, and look how well they were doing back in the 1930s!) Meanwhile, what will the rest of the world do while America prepares its Iranian D-day? Are there any international laws that apply to this kind of thing (war, I mean)? Does Iran have key reserves of any important resources, the price of which has a significant effect on global economic activity?

The dean of the press corps, people! This idea would get laughed out of dorm rooms! One (almost!) has to respect the high level at which the midterm campaigns have been conducted, given that this is the direction at least one major daily would have preferred the conversation to move.

View full post on Free exchange


Posted on October 20, 2010 - by

What should replace Bretton Woods 2?

IN THE years after the Second World War, the international economic system was rebuilt around an edifice that came to be known as the Bretton Woods monetary system, after the New Hampshire town where Allied leaders negotiated the postwar international financial architecture. Most economies pegged their exchange rates to gold under the system, which worked fairly well for two decades. By the early 1970s, however, inflation and stagnant growth were placing stresses on the system, which ultimately broke down when America abruptly suspended convertibility in 1971.

Over the decades that followed, a new, informal system sprang up, which came to be known as Bretton Woods 2. This system involved the accumulation of large dollar reserves by emerging markets, and it has been sorely tested by the rise of large global imbalances and destabilising capital flows. It is unlikely to persist for much longer.

That raises the question: what should come next? We asked the economists at Economics by invitation and got a wide range of answers. John Makin says it’s time to dispense with managed exchange rates:

The longer additional currency flexibility is resisted, the greater will be global financial volatility and associated resource misallocation. One hopes we don’t have to endure 14 months of currency turmoil as we did after December 1971.

Some suggest that world in which the dollar’s role is balanced by other reserve currencies would be more stable. Here’s Yang Yao:

In the end, a solution to replace the so-called “Bretton Woods 2” that may naturally emerge from the current world order is the competition, and hopefully cooperation, among several major currencies. Besides the dollar, the euro has played a significant role in global trade and finance. The Japanese yen and the British pound are also around although they have not reached significant primacy. The Chinese yuan may take some share if the Chinese authorities open up the country’s capital account. Currencies in other emerging markets also have hope. The competition among several major currencies will help preventing liquidity from concentrating in a few countries and will constrain irresponsible behaviour in the management of individual currencies.

On top of that, some binding multilateral mechanism is needed to coordinate the exchange rates among the major currencies, especially in bad times. The G20 is a potential venue for such a mechanism. However, the current floating system is inadequate for this mechanism to function; it gives a “legitimate” reason for the US to dump its domestic problems to the rest of the world by devaluing the dollar.

Others indicate that any new arrangement is likely to prove unstable if deficit countries fail to improve their fiscal position. This issue is far from being resolved. At the G20 meeting in November, the direction in which the system is evolving is likely to be a matter of intense debate. Do click through and have a look at all the comments.

View full post on Free exchange