"While watching the Olympics, I couldn't thinking about the investment opportunities of the various countries participating in the games," says exchange-traded fund expert Carl Delfeld.

Recognizing that this is not a "scientific" approach nor a primary basis for seriously determining one's asset allocation the editor of Around the World with ETFs speculates, "While it is admittedly a stretch, let's consider what an ETF porfolio of the top ten countries in the Beijing Olympics medal count would look like."

"I hope that while watching the Olympic games many investors were also reminded at how the world is changing and why they need a global portfolio to capture value and growth around the world.

"The U.S. did remarkably well across the board underscoring its role as the world's leading investment destination. China surged to win the most gold and reach the symbolic level of 100 medals.

"Quite an achievement that punctuates China's growing heft. With the Shanghai Composite down 55% this year, it has come down to earth and is interesting from a valuation perspective.

"Next comes Russia with a performance fueled by a strong Olympian tradition and petro dollars but perhaps a bit overshadowed by the Georgian fiasco. I will take a pass on this one even though it is off 36% since just May.

I believe that everyone, no matter how much investment experience they have, should learn how to take control of their investing, buy a well diversified portfolio of index funds, periodically rebalance their portfolio, and allow their money to compound without fees. So do Warren Buffett (read what he wrote about fees), John Bogle, David Swensen, and other investment industry luminaries. This is because the fees charged by the financial industry, over time, decimate investment returns.

But many people just want investment advice. Most people will spend more time shopping for a car on the weekend to save $1000, than to understand the true cost of the investment advice they are receiving on the nest egg that they're spending their entire working lives building. If you must, here are some tips that I think will help you minimize the damage and give you a shot at having a successful relationship with your stock broker, financial adviser or investment manager.

1. Show Me The Fees. If your financial adviser is charging a fee to oversee your investments, he is probably investing your money in mutual funds that also have fees. Ask for a comprehensive list of all the fees you are paying each year including each fund, its fees, and his fees. Try to get these aggregate fees below 2% per year. My friend has a $6 million account with one of the largest four brokers and to make my point, I calculated his mutual fund fees, loads, and fees to his advisor. Last year he paid about $138,000! He is considering switching to index funds and where he would pay $18,000 per year.

2. Get Invoiced. Most financial advisors "debit" your account either in advance of the quarter or month. Ask them to send you an invoice and write them a check. That way you'll stay aware of the cost for these services.

3. Show Me The Commissions. Ask your adviser to disclose the exact amount of commissions, credits or any form of compensation he or she is paid as an incentive for having you invest in a certain financial product like a mutual fund, annuity, or life insurance product. Also ask for the cost of an index fund alternative so that you can understand exactly what it is costing you to be "sold" a particular product and so that you can justify its price in the future.

If you've ever delved into investing in ETFs (exchange-traded funds, basically entire indexes and sectors that trade like stocks), you're already familiar with the most popular, those being Powershares QQQ Trust (Nasdaq: QQQQ), SPDR Trust Series 1 (AMEX: SPY), Diamonds Trust, Series 1 (AMEX: DIA), iShares Russell 2000 Index (NYSE: IWM) and lately Financial Select SPDR (AMEX: XLF) and UltraShort QQQ ProShares (AMEX: QID). But have you ever looked into those that are much less followed, but more capable of yielding some big-time returns?

I primarily trade fun smallcap stocks, so until the past few days, I hadn't either. But when I began researching, I just kept finding more and more interesting ETFs -- it was addictive! Almost addictive as my new Twitter account where I've discovered I can chat with business legends, yesterday it was the founder of eBay Inc (Nasdaq: EBAY). Okay, maybe ETFs will never be that addictive!

Out the few hundred ETFs I looked into, here were some of the more interesting of the bunch:

As of Monday's close, the S&P 500 SPDR exchange-traded fund (AMEX: SPY) was down 12.25% for the year, buffeted by continuing turbulence in global credit markets and concerns over future growth prospects.

However, the relative performance of the major sector ETFs paints a far more confusing picture.

On the one hand, strength in materials and industrial shares, and weakness in the traditionally defensive health care sector, suggests that investors are not too worried about the outlook.

In contrast, strength in the consumer staples sector and weakness in technology shares indicates they are, in fact, concerned about what will happen to the economy.

So what does it all mean?

It seems that every day a new ETF is listed with a new twist on an index.

So, for a short history in ETF evolution:

1. First came the market-weight indexed ETFs. These were ETFs that benchmarked themselves to indices like the S&P (AMEX: SPY) or the Nasdaq (NASDAQ: QQQQ).

2. Then, Jeremy Siegel and the WisdomTree (WSDT) team introduced dividend -weighted indices. Instead of giving commensurate weight to the largest companies in an index, these ETFs looked at companies with the highest payouts in terms of dividends. These were shortly followed by earnings-weighted indices and the ETFs that track them.

3. Now, we read on MarketWatch that a new firm named RevenueShares has listed three separate shares: the RevenueShares Large Cap Fund (NYSE: RWL), the RevenueShares Mid Cap Fund (NYSE: RWK), and lastly, you guessed it, the RevenueShares Small Cap Fund (NYSE: RWJ).

MarketWatch was running a interview today with Will Nasgovitz, co-manager of the Heartland Select Value Fund (NASDAQ: HRSVX). The $332 billion fund has absolutely trounced the S&P 500 (AMEX: SPY) since 2000. Even with an extremely rocky 2007, the fund is up over 100% since 2000, where the S&P is actually (ugh) in the red for the same time period.

The secret sauce?

MarketWatch quotes manager Nasgovitz as saying that the team running Select Value has a background covering small- and micro-cap stocks, which don't get as much analyst research coverage, that they apply when delving into larger companies.

What's Nasgovitz buying of late?

After rising more or less in line with overall market volume for years, there has been a noticeable surge since the spring in the relative turnover of selected exchange-traded funds (ETFs).

For the SPDR Trust Series 1 ETF (AMEX: SPY), which tracks the S&P 500 index, the average daily volume (ADV) compared to New York Stock Exchange Composite ADV increased from 6.1% in April to 16.8% last month. For the PowerShares QQQ ETF (NASDAQ: QQQQ), which emulates the Nasdaq-100 index, the numbers went from 6.3% to 14.1%. For the iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund ETF (AMEX: IWM), which mirrors the small cap benchmark, relative turnover rose from 3.4% to 6.7%.

Although it's not clear whether the activity was related to hedging or outright position-taking -- or both -- the sharp increase in activity suggests that there has been an important change in the underlying dynamic of the U.S. equity market. If so, it raises some interesting questions.

Could this be a sign, for example, that the influence of hedge funds, proprietary trading desks, and other speculative operators is expanding dramatically? Are investors of all stripes becoming increasingly focused on ETFs as an investing vehicle? Does this emphasis on trading bundles of shares mean that more individual issues are "mispriced"?

Whatever the case, this is a trend worth paying attention to.

Michael Panzner is a 25-year veteran of the global stock, bond, and currency markets and the author of Financial Armageddon: Protecting Your Future from Four Impending Catastrophes and The New Laws of the Stock Market Jungle.

"The FOMC inspired rally has continued and a new trading range may be setting up," says Larry McMillan in his Daily Strategist, an options trading service.

The technician explains, "With continued strength, the breakout of the trading range is starting to have a more valid feel to it – and a new trading range bordered by 1480/1490 on the downside to 1550 on the upside may now be setting up."

Market breadth, he notes, is overbought and he considers this bullish – especially given the fact that we have just seen a 90% up volume day. He suggests, "As we have often seen – a market that is overbought and that adds to the overbought condition (on price improvement) – has positive price momentum in its favor."

He also points out that the $VIX has continued to trend lower, which he considers positive. Further, he adds, the Equity-Only put-call ratios remain bullish as well. Therefore, he states, "Our technical indicators are overwhelmingly bullish; and sector performance is extremely positive based on the Financial and Energy sectors."

By now everyone has heard about the new Google Street View. While this new Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) feature may be unnerving to some and even patently offensive to others, it's my solemn duty to inform you that legally, Google is doing nothing wrong. For the purposes of Fourth Amendment searches, this particular scenario has been put to rest. You see, the Supreme Court decided long ago that any area that can be plainly viewed from any place in which a person has a right to be, retains no right of privacy for the area being viewed. Simply put, a cop can stand on the sidewalk and gawk all he wants toward the front of your house. Anything within his view is fair game.

Additionally, the court then determined that it is permissible for that cop to use magnifying lenses to enhance his ability to see. This means he can stand on the sidewalk with binoculars and peer into any place he'd like (within reason of course). Furthermore, he may fly over your home in an airplane with a camera and spy into any space available to his line of sight. The Supreme Court said he can, and so Google can too.

My advice to you dear friends is to simply remain aware of the fact that you might possibly be viewed and recorded at any time. You may wish to remember also that any cell phone communications you have carry no privacy privileges. Any of your internet access is readily available for instant scrutiny, and any public establishment you enter has a right to record your image and pretty much do with it as it pleases. At least we don't have those nasty British hovering camera drones to deal with, or at least I haven't seen any here yet.

If you would like some more input on the Google Street View issue, here are the observations of Tom Barlow, Sheldon Liber, and Peter Cohan. I hope you enjoy them as much as I have. In the meantime:

Smile! You're on not-so-candid camera!

During 2007, index-related turnover appears to have gained pace when compared to the volume of trading in the shares that comprise the S&P 500 index.

Last year, the median value of daily turnover in the S&P Depositary Trust exchange-traded fund, or ETF (AMEX: SPY), relative to index share volume was 4.9%. So far this year, it is 6.8%, a third higher.

More interesting, perhaps, is the fact that relative turnover in the popular ETF has been increasing since the S&P 500 broke out to new multi-year highs in mid-April. Normally, "Spider" volume only tends to rise in comparison to that of individual shares during market selloffs, as institutions scramble to hedge long portfolios with easy-to-sell, index-type instruments. In contrast, rallies are generally powered by money flowing into individual shares.

In my view, the anomaly of share prices and the relative volume ratio moving higher in tandem suggests two possibilities. On the one hand, it may reflect buying by aggressive operators who are either excessively short or underweight the market -- hedge funds, perhaps?

Alternatively, it may be the footprint of market participants who are quickly ramping up exposure to U.S. equities as an asset class -- maybe the Chinese, with their extremely large horde of dollar reserves?

Whatever the case, the recent pattern bears further watching.

Michael Panzner is a 25-year veteran of the global stock, bond, and currency markets and the author of Financial Armageddon: Protecting Your Future from Four Impending Catastrophes and The New Laws of the Stock Market Jungle: An Insider's Guide to Successful Investing in a Changing World.

"The worst is over," options traders David Nasser and Larry McMillan forecast last week in a joint report for MarketWatch Options Trader.

In support of their bullishness, they noted, "Recent action constituted a retest of the March 5 lows. At this point in time, it appears to have been a successful retest. While all of our technical indicators aren't yet in agreement, it would seem that the bears have run out of steam for now.'

The technicians add, "The equity-only put-call ratios have basically skyrocketed since the bullish trend first broke, back on Feb. 27. They have now reached levels higher than those seen at last summer's correction lows. These are some of the most consistently high put-call readings in history. Eventually, it should lead to strong buy signals -- and probably fairly soon."

This morning's Wall Street Journal reports on its reporter, Pui-Wing Tam's, report on how Hewlett-Packard Company (NYSE: HPQ) spied on her.

There are many levels of irony in this story. Reporters do all sorts of investigations on their subjects. I don't know how they cultivate their anonymous sources to dig up the details that they report. But my hunch is that while they're often snoops -- peering into places where their targets would prefer they did not -- reporters don't resort to the kind of tactics (pre-trash inspections or monitoring phone calls and IM sessions) to which Tam was subjected.

But I can't help but think that Tam's subjects share some of the same fears of being investigated that she must have felt when she began to realize that HP was placing her under surveillance. Her article's cool, almost tongue-in-cheek tone does not reveal these fears explicitly, instead leaving them to the reader's imagination.

But I imagine that former HP Chair Patricia Dunn must have felt a similar fear when she realized that someone on HP's board was leaking to the media. I'm not defending what HP did; I think it's a 1984-like invasion of privacy for which HP will suffer significant consequences.

With deference to Prussian General Von Clausewitz -- who famously said war is "a continuation of politics by other means" -- I see HP's tactics as investigative reporting by other means.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates, a management consulting and venture capital firm, and a Professor of Management at Babson College. He has no financial interest in HP.

I've worked for a paranoid boss or two. I won't name names or dish details, but let's just say I've been directed to spend a lot of company money on re-keying every office lock. And again with the changing locks. And again!

But reading about Patricia Dunn and gang, I know that my brushes with paranoia have nothing on Hewlett-Packard Company (NYSE:HPQ). Why don't we lift a few quotes from the New York Times article. Like, "conducted feasibility studies on planting spies in news bureaus of two major publications," (pretty crazy right?) and "Feasibility studies are in progress for undercover operations (clerical) in CNET and WSJ offices in SF bureaus." (that's from an HP memo!)

Really, truly, Patricia Dunn and some of her deputies, including Anthony Gentilucci, manager of global investigations, and (this is comedy gold) Kevin Hunsaker, chief ethics officer, thought about placing their moles in the WSJ secretarial and janitorial staff. It's not known what was the result of the feasibility study (my gut goes with "NOT"), or whether spies were actually engaged and deployed. It remains to be seen whether current CEO Mark Hurd can escape from the mess; Dan Farber says, "Wall Street better hope that Hurd comes out clean from this sordid affair." Shivers.

It's truly the work of a disturbed individual, and it didn't work out well for Ms. Dunn. As we all know, she will be stepping down January 1. She may be the most famous paranoid business leader, but she's surely not the only one. It's a cautionary tale from which Tom Taulli learned, "emails are forever" and Frank Furd learned that the culture of spying is invading our culture as a whole (and "Is *this* what they meant when they spoke of an 'MBA president'?") But what did I learn from this? My lesson is a bit ironic:

Beware the paranoid boss. And whatever you do, don't conduct that feasibility study on criminal acts. (And if you discover criminal misdeeds? Don't reply to the email describing them, "I shouldn't have asked." It just makes you look, umm, unethical.)