In a conversation with an attorney friend of mine, who happens to be a woman, she asked for some general financial guidance. During the course of the conversation it occurred to me that women need to save more than men. There are many reasons for this, here are a few:

The first and most obvious reason women need to save more than men is that they live longer -- often without the support of a significant other. Living longer and living alone cost more money.

Second of all, women still do not have complete earnings parity with men. Some of this has to do with job type and some with history. But nevertheless, we are not there yet. If there is a 15% disparity, then a woman is starting at a disadvantage whether saving for her retirement in the future or for buying a gallon of gas today. This can only be made up by saving more and investing more. This is a worthy goal except that with less resources the difficulty is exacerbated.

Continue reading Three reasons women need to save more than men -- Seriously!

Three reasons women need to save more than men -- Seriously! originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:11:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

I have not decided who I am voting for yet. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say I have decided on multiple occasions only to become undecided again. While some will see me as fickle, or worse, others may be in the same boat.

I am also continuing to think about what difference any of the candidates can make on the economy, and based on these musings, where to invest. My current belief is that none of them will have a profound impact on our economy.

There are no financial wizards among them. Here is the shocker though: I like all three candidates, or at least can find some good in each of them. Each of them is a fighter, and I believe each one of them brings certain skill sets to the job. There are also things about each candidate that are inescapably negative. Clinton has so much baggage, Zsa Zsa Gabor would be jealous. Obama does not have the experience and he has a degree of arrogance (right sweetie); McCain is an old stick-in-the-mud who, as a long-time senator, has spent more hours with lobbyists than almost anybody, though he is pretending otherwise.

Where does this leave me from an investment perspective? My first choice, for stability with moderate growth and dividends, remains the defense sector. I wrote Defense sector rolls over S&P 500 for 8th straight year a while back and I still think that it is the most secure. Here's why:

A) None of the candidates will want to appear soft on defense when we are at war, and all three have made threatening remarks in some country's direction to make sure the electorate knows that.

B) The War in Afghanistan and Iraq rages on, and even the most optimist view is that a draw-down will take years.

C) Even if all war ceased immediately, the upgrading and replenishment of the hardware will cost billions of dollars and most of the defense contractors have that in their backlogs now. Chasing Value: General Dynamics & Raytheon -- The defense does not rest

Continue reading Investing in Everyone: Defense, Food, Power, Clinton, Obama, and McCain

Investing in Everyone: Defense, Food, Power, Clinton, Obama, and McCain originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Tue, 27 May 2008 19:05:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

All this recession talk has not convinced me that we are destined to have one, and I see plenty of signs that 2008 might surprise to the upside. There are plenty of problems within the US economy, and I could make a case that there is a possibility that the economy might catch cold but remedies also exist. I see the cup as half full for the stock market. This is not to say that individuals will not have to deal with hard times, they will - but the market might shine. This can happen because the market is global.

Many widely followed investment icons have a different perspective, including renowned international investor Jim Rogers in the December issue of Fortune who said, "In my view, the U.S. economy is in recession. I know the government says we're not. But as I look around, we know that automobiles are in worse than recession. The same thing is true for home-builders. Much of the financial sector is in worse than recession. So many parts of America are in worse than recession, and yet the government says we're not in a recession. I don't know what's so strong that it's offsetting these major weaknesses in the American economy. I just assume that the government is lying."

I can agree that the government is lying, but I can't agree that the economy is void of positives. There is plenty that is going strong in the economy. The defense sector is going strong as I reported on recently Defense sector rolls over S&P 500 for 8th straight year and there is every indication this will continue.

Continue reading Serious Money: No recession in 2008

Serious Money: No recession in 2008 originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:03:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Continue reading Archer-Daniels-Midland (ADM): Trade idea ahead of earnings

Archer-Daniels-Midland (ADM): Trade idea ahead of earnings originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:08:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Archer-Daniels-Midland earnings: Solid fourth quarter originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 08:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Continue reading Archer Daniels comes up short

Archer Daniels comes up short originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Tue, 01 May 2007 09:05:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.