7 replies to this topic

[traderx]

It has been suggested by some that most stocks are not suitable for an IRA. What are examples of investments that are suitable for an IRA?

[selecto]

Bigger caps, with good dividend record which are ranked high as good places to work / high customer satisfaction. No bio/pharma, because they are effin thieves, who prey on the suffering, while the politicians stand by and take their money to keep it that way.

[Caduceus]

I agree with Selecto. This is a good place to start: If you have access to S&P reports or better yet a screener with the data look for Large caps with an "earnings and dividend" rank of "A-" or better. Then rank the results by dividend yield. I would not include Financials (most of the results will be financials) If you want financials I would go with WFC, BMO, C. This is just a starting place but you will easily beat the market over the long term with lower volatility in my opinion. This is probably not the best place to ask about fundamentals though as this is a trading board. I Hope this helps

[ogm]

BAC is a good eaxmple of an IRA quality stock. Highest quality bank, 5.3% dividend yield, history of raising dividend every year DB is in the same category too. I wouldn't be surprized if NRO at these levels proved to be a prudent IRA pick up.

[vitaminm]

It has been suggested by some that most stocks are not suitable for an IRA. What are examples of investments that are suitable for an IRA?

Take a look at Rydex funds.

Compare any stocks u buy in IRA with these ETFs. Why buy stocks If they don't outperform Index ?

http://finance.yahoo...SSO,WFC,BMO,BAC

[JAP]

In the short term... cash is perfectly suitable for me.

[greenie]

It depends on which year you are asking the question. In 2000, it would have been INTC, CSCO and MSFT - they were the future of USA, and not like those pesky speculative dotcoms. Also, tech stocks never go down. Or if wanted to be little more conservative, it was WCOM and enron. After all, the largest telecom and power companies were not going to go away. Right now, REITs look most attractive. They are professional operations run by qualified managers. They pay solid dividend every year, and the sector did not go down in any of the last seven years, even during the dotcom crash. After all, technologies change, but this country is surely going to need offices, shopping malls and apartments. Among REITs, the real value players are those closed-end funds like RAS and NRO, who pay very high dividends and are solid value players yet to be discovered.

[OEXCHAOS]

Greenie, You're starting to get annoying. It's certainly OK to disagree about whether or not a sector is going to play well, but to continually snipe at it and attempt to ridicule those who don't believe that all real estate is going to zero (or whatever your thesis is) is crummy, ESPECIALLY when I've seen no real evidence that you know the first thing about investing or really even trading (one great trade can be pure accident). It starts to grind. Here's why: Anyone who knows what they are doing has a great deal of humility about their calls and picks. With experience, one KNOWS that the best thought out investments can blow up on one's face in a heart beat. That's why one diversifies and that's why one remains humble. So, we have no evidence that you know what you're doing, but we DO have some evidence that you don't (other wise you would not have made the above post). And I'm calling you on it because you're willfully polluting a thread that was genuine inquiry. Be an asset to this board, greenie, not a detriment to the signal/noise ratio. For those who might have been mislead by greenie's noise, REIT's are a classic value play. They may not work out. Many value plays don't, but they have all the characteristics of a long-term good investment. Big, reliable dividends, assets priced significantly below fair market value, which are themselves undervalued. Certainly, the sector deserves a modest portion of one's diversified portfolio. Leave room to buy more and still keep it under 10%. One can contrast this with the other stocks mentioned by greenie. They were not values in 2000. Though INTC might be considered one now. To answer the original question, I'd have to disagree with the notion that most stocks aren't appropriate to an IRA. Most might well be, in proper proportion. There's ample evidence to suggest that a low cost, highly diversified fund, which would might own most stocks is perfectly fine. Now, my personal view is that when investing, one should generally stick with quality when one buys stocks. Know the business a bit, know the company, and know what represents decent value. If you can't do that, then buy a long term good performing mutual fund or diversified, long ETF. Don't forget about high quality bonds, too, when you can find them at a good yield. I've done quite well for folks in zero coupon treasuries over the years. In fact, just before the top in 2000 I accumulated big zero coupon positions for my clients. It was a huge success and I didn't lose a wink of sleep. You can certainly trade in an IRA, but unless you know what you're doing, that's the wrong place to learn. Take your losses outside of an IRA, where you can deduct them... Mark