snuggles

I'm 22, newly married and have about 10k to invest. I really don't have time to keep up with stocks so I'm looking for an investment that could yield a decent return but without having to keep up with it (so to speak). If anyone has any knowledge of metal investments, advice would be greatly appreciated.

Mr Dave

Do you mean physical silver?
Or iShares like SLV?
Or...?

I have SLV and I'm VERY bullish about it in the short term.
Depending on who you ask, it might get to $35/sh...maybe $50...maybe $150?! Or it could drop back to $27 again tomorrow.

Like with all things, the closer attention you pay to your own investing the more money you stand to make.
SLV spiked for about a week in Feb and if you were paying attention you stood to make a lot of money selling it (or selling options against it as I did) and then re-buying once it fell.

It has just spiked again (relative to it's previous 6-month moving average) so you may think this is the perfect time to buy...or think it's a terrible time to buy. It depends on your opinion of the strength of the dollar, the general future of our Economy...and about a trillion other factors.

Yes, I realize I'm not being much help but investing isn't a yes or no question. You're not asking about Gold (or Uranium...which you may want to check out) and so I'm guessing you got to SLV based on...someone's recommendation?

If I had $10k to invest at age 22 I'd look at a diversified high-dividend portfolio and just let it cook. Re-invest in the companies and check it as often as you want...just don't pull that money out unless it's to invest in another high-dividend company.

SLV? Sure - I think you stand to make some cash. But then what?
Think long term. Hire a stock broker and ask questions. His commission will be MORE than worth the education you get.

My .02...

snuggles

Makes sense. No I wasn't meaning physical silver. So you suggest a stock broker. How badly do they rape you on commission? And do they mess with a measly 10k? I've always had the perception that stock brokers were for rich folks.

Mr Dave

I've been investing since I was in 8th grade with my paper route money.
I found a stock broker then who was willing to take my paltry savings and help guide me into solid investments.

I opened an account with my current broker with less than you have after graduating college, getting married, and moving across the country.
He has been an incredible asset -- I come to him with all kinds of schemes and he tempers my "get-rich-quick" enthusiasm with reason and logic.

That alone -- having someone to check you -- pays for itself.

Commission? Only when you buy/sell. There's no "retainer" fee or anything. No cost to keep his services.
No monthly or annual fee. And you yourself said you don't want to touch it much, so the $50, commission (or whatever he might charge) is really nominal. If you buy and sell all the time, then it adds up...but it doesn't sound like that's your style. Just set your investments on re-invest (no commission) and check in with your guy every now and then to make sure you're still in things that make sense in the current marketplace.

Any Stock Broker worth his salt would be happy to find a young client with $10k to invest at 22...because people like you + me will continue making money and investing our entire lives. I'd be happy to get you the name and number of my guy if you want to talk to someone.

snuggles

Yeah drop me a PM with his name. I'd at least be interested in talking with him and gain a better understanding of investing. Thanks for your help!!

magician

Why high-dividend? Why not stocks that are likely to appreciate rather than stocks that pay dividends?

Mr Dave

OP said he didn't want to pay too much attention to the portfolio.
I would submit that the stocks that pay high dividends will appreciate in price -- but with high-div stocks he'll also enjoy the security of guaranteed growth.

More volatile stocks would demand the OP pay closer attention.
just my .02

magician

While more volatile stocks may demand that he pay closer attention, I'm not sure why you're implying that growth (i.e., non-dividend-paying stocks) stocks would be more volatile, or would grow more slowly. I never suggested that dividend paying stocks wouldn't appreciate. And if a dividend-paying stock depreciates, there's no guaranteed growth.