Precious metals offer enormous investment potential when purchased correctly, and of all of the popular precious metals, silver offers some of the best advantages for serious investors.  Here are a few reasons to consider buying silver for your investment portfolio.

1. Silver is Useful, and Demand is Increasing.  Silver is an excellent conductor, so it’s used in cell phones, tablets, computer components and hundreds of other products.  Usefulness is an important factor to consider when investing in raw materials, and silver’s advantages in this area mean that the material will likely retain its value over the next decades.

2. Silver is Somewhat Scarce.  Scarcity is determined by availability and the amount of effort and money it takes to mine a precious metal.  Silver mines are by no means commonplace, and as mining companies invest more money in their operations, the price of silver should continue to rise.

Thanks to the high demand for the metal, mining production rose in 2011 to 23,689 tons, with Mexico, Peru and China leading production.  Reclaimed silver also made up a significant portion of worldwide supply in 2011, but as the value of silver increases, reclaimed silver will likely become a less common source of the material.  Investors with silver bullion will see their investments improve in value as this scarcity takes effect.

3. Precious Metals Do Well When Stocks Do Poorly.  If you’re considering silver, you’re probably wary of traditional stocks due to the unpredictable nature of the modern stock market.  Silver bullion typically does extremely well during harsh economic periods and keeps a steady value during good periods.  When the stock market receded in 2007, the value of silver increased by 14 percent.

It’s important to note that major increases in the price of precious metals are typically impermanent.  Prices restore when the stock market settles into equilibrium, but silver is used in a growing number of emerging industries.  Many investors believe that silver will retain value in 2012 and throughout the next decade, and by buying bullion bars, investors obtain a safe, dependable investment with serious potential.

The Occupy Movement’s protests put the issue of mounting debt from private and federal student loans at the forefront of the economic debate in the U.S. early in 2012. The protests occurred concurrently with the announcement by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that total outstanding educational debt in the nation has surpassed $1 trillion, growing by $117 billion in 2011 alone. There are currently five proposals in Congress, including the Student Loan Forgiveness Act of 2012 offering varying degrees of relief for what some say is the next economic bubble threatening to burst. Just how serious is the student loan crisis.?

Uneven Burden of Student Indebtedness

As is generally the case, the media tends to focus on the most extreme examples of individuals whose lives have been ruined by outstanding educational debt. However, according to a report published in the New York Times on May 13, only 3 percent of students owe in excess of $100,000, with just 10 percent owing more than $54,000. The average debt for roughly two-thirds of college students in the U.S. is $12,800.

In part, the explanation for the seemingly massive escalation of student loans last year lies in the number of students who are returning to school. These new students are seeking to close the earnings gap between jobs available for high school graduates compared to degree holders. And they are the students who, after July, will see an interest rate jump for their Stafford from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. While that sounds catastrophic, for most borrowers it will mean only an extra $6 a month in payments.

This is not to say that the student loan horror stories are not real and not horrible. Take, for instance, the case of a woman who graduated with a Masters degree in 1996 — paid for with $44,000 in student loans. After being forced to accept a series of low-wage jobs, she fell behind on her payments so that, at age 73, her wages are now garnished and she’s faced with the prospect of losing her home. Her total educational debt now stands at $136,000.

Specific Classes of Students are Being Hit the Hardest

In the current climate, students at for-profit schools are incurring the greatest amount of debt. They tend to come from low-income families and many are returning military veterans. Not surprisingly, both these groups are the ones most likely to default on their loans and to be faced with wrecked credit scores that will affect their major life choices like marriage, purchasing a home, and starting a family. Ironically, they are the same group that stands to gain the most from seeking a higher education.

Many educational critics say that rather than pressing for loan forgiveness, a solution that is not likely to happen on the scale envisioned by the Occupy Movement, the emphasis should be on both pressuring and rewarding universities for bringing down their costs. Modifications of existing bankruptcy laws are also a partial solution as currently, due to legislation passed in 1998 and 2005, neither private nor federal student loans can be relieved in a bankruptcy proceeding.

The fact that some holders of student loan debt are older Americans who returned to school to seek or finish a degree, adds another complicated economic wrinkle for a graying American population. Since the recession wiped out millions of dollars in retirement savings, older students, or even parents who cosigned loans for their children are also looking at decades of debt resolution. A recent survey conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that a third of all student loans are held by people age 40 or above.

What Happens if the Bubble Bursts?

Even economic analysts agree that it’s difficult to predict the long-term ramifications of the student loan crisis. In the short-term, fear of student loan debt is creating a devalued perception of the worth of a college education even though in the workforce, a degree still translates to higher lifetime wages. Moving forward, however, the deep concern is that student loan debt will create a generation of “wage slaves” who never really get ahead because they are working primarily to pay debt. Given the continued general weakness of the economy, this bubble could prolong an already tepid recovery, and set the stage for the next generation of senior citizens to enter their retirement years with virtually no savings.

Energy management refers to the process of scrutinizing, managing, and saving energy in a building or institution. This typically involves measuring your energy consumption and looking for options to save that energy. Much of the significance of energy saving plans originates from the global requirement to save energy. This universal need affects power costs and emission targets, both of which lead to a number of gripping reasons why you need to save energy.

According to Bill Clinton, the former President of America, the most effectual way to look after the environment is to show that it could be good business, furnishing some students with a practical lesson in battling climate change and improving sustainability. He also stated that, altering the way America creates and consumes energy and handles local resources, is the only major thing that could be done to produce jobs in the nation today. He added that the Germans were able to create thousands of jobs with the country’s awareness of solar panels. He himself offered some suggestions that he said would lessen energy consumption and produce more jobs. One of those suggestions was to refurnish schools and local government constructions. Another one would be to cover each flat-roof building with white paint, coated in black tar. This alone would lower air-conditioning bills by nearly 20 percent.

Recently, President Bill Clinton congratulated a group of local high school pupils for their initiatives to promote and take part in maintenance and sustainability assignments. According to him, energy management is “good economics”. He spoke to nearly 5,000 students, parents, teachers, and state deputies at Rupp Arena, on the occasion of the Bluegrass Youth Sustainability Council’s Earth Day Celebration. The committee, consisting of student representatives from eight Fayette County private and public high schools, functions with non-profit organizations to discover and take part in two-way projects that encourage maintenance and power management. Clinton stated that the council is the single non-governmental student organization of its kind in the U.S. He said that the job these young pupils are doing is really worth appreciating.

The earth is getting heated up at an indefensible rate, Clinton proclaimed. People need to follow the footsteps of the Bluegrass Youth Sustainability Council, and seek new ways to make a difference. Organizations that look for ways to improve the way they create and use energy, will not only be able to save more money, but also create more job opportunities. According to the former President, this is something that’s truly essential for America to develop and flourish.

Clinton said that the problem with all sustainable energy is that, the costs are upfront and the benefits take place over a long period of time. Nevertheless, it’s great economics.

Establishing a new power plant, employing nuclear or coal power produces nearly 800 to 900 jobs for every billion dollars spent. Clinton declared that a few years back, Walmart was able to reduce nearly 5 percent on packaging costs on goods and it had its corresponding impact of getting 211,000 diesel trucks off the street. He said that Germany and Denmark’s commitment to lower their greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by the year 2020 was indeed a very clever idea. He added that they would replace 20 percent of their coal with wood shots. This would save their coal supply, their coal industry, and even lower their emissions by nearly 20 percent. Clinton helped put up a coaching hospital in Port-au-Prince, which has over 1,800 solar panels installed on its roof. He claimed that this is the largest solar edifice in the Caribbean.

This post was contributed by Justine Anderson who is a contributory writer associated with the Debt Consolidation Care Community. She has written several articles for various financial websites and has made significant contributions through her various articles for the Debt industry.

A new study, written by Dave Berger of Oregon State University and Kuntara Pukthuanthong of San Diego State University, may give fiscal policymakers a valuable tool for assessing the likelihood of major global economic losses.

The study looks at common risk exposures for numerous international equity markets to determine the likelihood of losses in global stock market. These risks were compiled with information about stock market changes, which allowed researchers to see correlations between various international markets during loss periods. The study’s resulting “fragility index” shows this likelihood. In other words, a high fragility index would indicate the global stock market’s susceptibility to widespread losses, while a low fragility index would indicate relatively stable markets that would not experience widespread shock due to losses in a single international market.

The fragility index also effectively determines the magnitude of global stock market changes. When the market is especially fragile, the index is high, and losses are typically significant. On the other hand, a low fragility index would correlate with relatively minor changes in the global stock market.

The study, which was published online in the Journal of Financial Economics, used eight years of international stock market data to determine the fragility index. The researchers found risk exposure was high across multiple international markets. While the fragility index does not perfectly determine every global downturn, it does accurately measure susceptibility. Widespread global losses are far more common when the fragility index is high.

Berger points out that the fragility index is the only global systemic risk susceptibility number available. The research actively shows correlative risk in various international markets, with a high fragility index indicating a higher-than-average probability of sudden shock across multiple markets.

Berger and Pukthuanthong note that the index is useful for determining policy and for predicting major economic downturns. According to Berger, the 2008 economic collapse prompted the research, as a fragility index might have stemmed the largely unexpected widespread systemic loss. The index should give an indication of the likelihood of a similar downturn, which may provide policymakers with a chance to prevent or prepare for major global economic events.

Amid continuing concerns about the concentration of wealth in a tiny minority of investors, Brazilian physicists have borrowed principles from their own discipline to explain the phenomenon and suggest ways to prevent it.

According to J. Roberto Iglesias and Rita de Almeida, both of the Brazilian National Institute of Science and Technology of Complex Systems, what many have long suspected is true: The cards are stacked against poorer investors. However, Iglesias and de Almeida suggest that it is possible to change market exchange rules to ensure a more even playing field.

According to the physicists, wealth concentration is the natural result of market exchange rules that prevent agents from receiving income that exceeds their own capital. The researchers came to the conclusion that although such rules seem fair, their existence actually ensure that the bulk of the available wealth will end up concentrated in the hands of a select few.

The investigators studied the way in which wealth exchanges hands over time using statistical mechanics methods that were based on a theory of kinetic energy exchange. They demonstrated how, regardless of the initial wealth distribution, markets that follow the rule experience a gradual concentration of wealth among a few investors. This continues until the market becomes permanently bound up and the exchange of wealth halts.

Iglesias and de Almeida call for exploring the way changes in the rules of wealth exchange might prevent this from happening. They suggest that by manipulating the market to allow less-wealthy agents the probability of income greater than 50 percent, governments could eliminate the concentration of wealth and create a more equitable situation. They also theorize that allowing income greater than the agent’s capital would allow less-wealthy agents to recover and prevent stagnation.

The current study’s model does not represent a complete picture of the market and its dynamics. However, it does point the way for new research that could eventually lead to an end to inequities in the market.

In the current troubled United States economy, many investors have become more cautious about investing in the stock market. Often, this caution leads to unwise investment strategies, according to a new study from the University of Missouri that was published in the Journal of Socio-Economics. Researchers have determined that age and the state of the economy have a direct impact on investors’ willingness to take financial risks.

According to investigator Rui Yao, an investor’s risk tolerance tends to get lower with increasing age. This is partially because people who are retired or nearing retirement realize that they may not have enough years left to recover from any losses they might sustain and tend to start focusing on preserving their assets rather than increasing them.

Yao analyzed the results of the federal government’s 1989-2007 Survey of Consumer Finances and determined that investors’ risk tolerance tends to be high when the economy is going strong and to drop as the economy slows. Yao finds this conclusion troubling. The trick to success in the stock market is to buy low and sell high. Growing more cautious when the economy turns sluggish and becoming bolder when it has an upturn is tantamount to doing just the opposite, she explains.

According to Yao, understanding how risk tolerance works and realizing that intuitive investment strategies are not always the most effective is key to helping investors and financial planners plot winning investment strategies. She says this is particularly true right now, when financial analysts are expressing concern that the United States economy will remain turbulent for the foreseeable future.

“The duty of financial planners is to recommend appropriate investment portfolios based on client financial risk tolerance… Client education on financial risk is important so that a client can align personal investment goals with the ability to tolerate market fluctuations,” said Yao.

When it comes to high finance, most people approve of stock brokers and investment fund managers having a personal stake in the funds they invest as an incentive to act in the best interests of investors. However, a new study by researchers from Boston College and EDHEC Business School in France reveals how such a setup can backfire. Share-restricted hedge fund managers who invest in their own funds often use insider knowledge to protect their own holdings first, leading to lower returns for other investors.

The purpose of hedge funds is to generate high returns for shareholders, even in the face of poor market performance. To do that requires having a great deal of money on hand to make large, often very risky investments. As a result, only very wealthy investors like institutions and Warren Buffet types are permitted to hold shares in hedge funds. When an investor withdraws from a fund, the amount of money available to pour into a profitable venture or cover a sour investment is reduced, resulting in lower returns for the remaining shareholders. To better manage the amount of money available for investment, some hedge funds, known as share-restricted funds, place strict limits on how frequently investors can withdraw their money.

Researchers focused their study on these share-restricted hedge funds, in which investors must give notice of withdrawal up to six months in advance. They noted 56 events between 1999 and 2008 wherein managers used such information to withdraw their own money ahead of other investors to avoid lower returns—an act known as front-running. Analyzing data from thousands of hedge funds, researchers estimate that hedge fund managers may have shielded as much as $2.4 billion dollars from lower returns. Managers were also seen tipping off preferred clients to pending withdrawals, leaving uninformed shareholders with the most diminished returns.

Unregulated offshore (low-governance) hedge funds were more affected by front-running than regulated onshore (high-governance) funds, with an outflow rate of 18 percent following the sale of a manager’s shares. High-governance funds saw an outflow rate of only 6 percent.

The study comes after several billionaire hedge fund managers have been caught using insider information to their and their preferred clients’ advantage, which is illegal under SEC standards. Researchers Ronnie Sadka of Boston College and Gideon Ozik of EDHEC say the nature of share-restricted hedge funds makes front-running both easy and desirable. Where other hedge funds can earn an additional 5.6 percent in returns with a large inflow of cash, share-restricted funds have a much narrower return spread, making potential losses more acute for investors. Therefore, when a hedge fund manager sees declining returns in the future, his immediate impulse is to sell his shares for higher returns in the present. Such an act, however, only exacerbates the decline in returns for the fund’s remaining shareholders.

Sadka says the share-restricted strategy meant to benefit investors is creating a “potential conflict of interest between fund managers and investors” and changing what constitutes material information in the hedge fund industry. Before, mostly fundamental asset values were considered material information. But since inflows and outflows of money can be used to predict returns and used by managers to their own advantage, that information should be labeled “material” as well. Sadka and Ozik also suggest tighter share restrictions for managers.

In the meantime, Sadka says managers should try to avoid the appearance of front-running by disclosing to their funds’ other shareholders their intent to buy or sell shares.

These days, it seems nearly everyone has a plan to improve the U.S. economy. Yet what average Americans deem important to solving the nation’s problems–especially when it comes to health care–appears vastly different from what the field of presidential candidates is currently proposing. While Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich advocate cutting taxes, spending and regulation as a way to create jobs, a majority of citizens believe economic growth hinges on more public money funding health and science research.

According to a compilation of public opinion polls by Research!America, over three-quarters (77 percent) of Americans believe the U.S. is losing its international competitiveness in science and technology, and nearly the same number (70 percent) want the government to do more to encourage students to seek degrees in science, technology, mathematics and engineering. Eighty-six percent see advances in science as benefiting society and improving quality of life. A whopping 91 percent believe research and development holds the key to improving their state’s economy.

Opinions regarding health research in the U.S. are equally surprising. Over half (54 percent) of citizens think the U.S. doesn’t have the world’s best health care system. About 60 percent believe the U.S. is failing to make adequate progress in medical research, especially when it comes to preventative measures that could help people combat obesity, smoking and other health hazards. Fifty-two percent of survey participants think the government should be involved in prevention research. A staggering 82 percent want medical research that seeks to understand and eliminate disparities in the nation’s health care system, such as higher rates of disease and infant mortality among the poor.

But those aren’t the only surprises in the data. Seventy-nine percent of Americans surveyed support increasing the FDA’s funding, rating it as either “somewhat important” or “very important.” Ninety-one percent see investments in education as vital to economic recovery and growth. And 50 percent indicated they would be willing to pay an extra $1 a week in taxes to support additional medical research.

Former Illinois Congressman John Porter, chair of Research!America, says the findings show how necessary it is for the government to “do more to sustain and build our economy.” He says Americans have seen first-hand how cities that made scientific research a priority have benefited, which is why they should elect public officials dedicated to funding research. Investing in science education in particular contributes to the country’s long-term economic health.

President and CEO of Research!America, Mary Wolley, says turning to scientific research as a potential solution to the nation’s economic problems is a “smart strategy” for politicians, and one that should be reflected in public policy. The 2012 election will prove to be a significant one with so much at stake for both the economy and the future of publicly funded research. Perhaps someone should tell the Romney campaign, because his 59-point economic recovery plan doesn’t appear to include public investments in research.

Studies released in December 2011 showed that the difference in college completion rates between students from high-income and from low-income families grew dramatically in the past fifty years.

This is an important marker for the business world, as it indicates decreased levels of economic mobility through enrollment in college. When it comes to acquiring business insurance, this is an important new factor in the job market for college-educated employees. More information on this trend can be seen at BusinessInsurance.org.

Martha Bailey and Susan Dynarski, the researchers who undertook the study, analyzed the educational attainment levels of individuals born between 1961 and 1964 and those born between 1979 and 1982. In these two groups of students, Bailey and Dynarski looked at family income when the students were between 15 and 18 years of age.

Studies showed that 54 percent of the enrolled students in the later age bracket and the top income bracket graduated from college. In the earlier age bracket, only 36 percent of students in the top income bracket finished college. By contrast, college completion rates for students in the bottom income group increased from 5 percent to 9 percent.

This economic inequality is largely driven by the rise in college completion by women in the top income group. For those born in the 1960s, only 2 percent more women graduated from college than men. However, for those born in the 1980s, 13 percent more women from the top income bracket graduated from college than men in the same bracket.

Women have long been more likely to graduate from college once enrolled. However, the achievement gap between men and women has grown recently, especially among women from upper-income families. The overall graduation rate for women is now ten percentage points higher than the graduation rate for men. It remains unclear why this is the case.

Regardless of the reasons for this gender inequality, however, the authors of the study say that the achievement gap between students from low and high income families has clear policy implications. Sending more low-income individuals "will not…serve to close income gaps," when it comes to educational attainment. Just because they enter college does not mean that they will be able to finish it. “Existing differences in persistence,” say the authors, “produce large gaps in college completion.”

Any time stock market shifts lead to widespread losses, public demand for regulatory measures grows. Tighter regulatory control is probably not the financial panacea the public imagines, however, according to a study conducted at the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods. “Economic history shows us that strictly regulated stock markets do not necessarily function better than those that are given a free hand,” said economist Carsten Burhop, who coauthored the study, along with David Chambers and Brian Cheffins.

The researchers studied stock market patterns from Berlin and London from 1900 through 1910 to determine whether Berlin’s strictly regulated market performed better than London’s laissez faire equivalent. The goal of the project was to see whether a system that is heavily regulated by the state results in less risk for investors than markets that are largely self-regulated by merchants.

During the period studied, the Prussian Stock market was heavily regulated, according to Burhop. By contrast, Great Britain maintained a hands-off attitude towards the London Stock Exchange. In fact, there were few laws on the books to protect individuals who chose to dabble in the market. “As a result, the merchants who ran the London Stock Exchange were left to decide for themselves which initial public offerings were admitted to the market,” wrote Burhop. In addition to the self-regulated market, unwary investors, or those with ice water in their veins, could buy and sell in a secondary London market that operated with virtually no regulation.

Not surprisingly, trading through the unofficial London market during this period was an incredibly risky undertaking. Compared to the Berlin market, the London market saw a significantly larger number of initial public offerings representing a wide array of industries, with nearly 20 percent of startups failing within the first five years.” The Berlin market had a failure rate of less than one percent. During the same time period, the London Stock Exchange, as opposed to the unofficial London market, had a failure rate of between three and four percent. However, British investments boasted higher returns than German ones did.

The investigators concluded that, although standards and a measure of regulation appear to be necessary, government restrictions that attempt to take the risk out of investing do more harm than good over the long run. “Our findings show that a stock market cannot function entirely without rules,” said Burhop. “On the basis of our study, it is relatively unimportant whether control is exerted by statute and by a state commissioner as in Berlin, or by knowledgeable merchants as on one of the two London market segments.”