AOK
iShares Core Conservative Allocation ETF
Mentions (24Hr)
0.00% Today
Reddit Posts
Thoughts on iShares Core Aggressive Allocation (AOA) ETF from Blackrock?
What Do I Diversify Into? (small $ monthly investments)
Mentions
I appreciate your insightful response. Growing an illegal poppy field is one thing, a consumer buying poppy seeds for "ornamental value" is legal. What they do on an individual level is hard to police. Thus shouldn't the seeds be illegal? Mushroom spores are legal, you can buy a syringe filled with mushroom spores and that's AOK. But the moment you propagate them it's a serious felony. Again, hard to police from an individual level. The laws seem so porous in nature. I agree with your synopsis, if we go full S3 without a loophole fix, it immediately makes state markets in violation of federal agency guidelines. A memo will adjust the verbiage to allow the states markets to operate under state laws, but then it will immediately force states without medical markets, to now go online because I do not believe indiivudal states can dictate what MEDICINES are illegal and legal as defined by the FDA.
Are you in the US and can open US brokerage accounts? Assuming that's the case, then I'd say it depends on how you define short term? If it's around a year or less, cash or cash like things, say a MMF(or ETF equivalent[0]) is very reasonable. If it's 1-5 years, bonds in the proper duration, say US treasuries would make a lot of sense. If it's 5 to 10 years, then perhaps you want to dip into some equities, say something like the ETF AOK, which is 30% equities and 70% bonds. This should give you a 10-15% max volatility in the worst case, which might be reasonable? But just bonds would also be totally reasonable. 0: SGOV, ICSH, USFR, etc. There are plenty of them.
An etf ticker AOK is probably an example if I'm understanding correctly...
> We aren’t looking to move in the next 5 years but by the time we are 30-35 we will have likely be ready to say goodbye to our 2b 1bath. You know that's an expensive(transaction costs are no joke) and time-consuming/annoying process. I'd recommend leaning toward never leaving unless you have to. If you do buy something else and want to treat it as a rental, just treat it like a business, because that is what it is. It's work, only get into it if you want that kind of work. > We save $2500 a month into a HYS and have $37k on hand. If this is over and above your maxed out retirement accounts, Awesome! > Should we be looking at mutual funds/ index funds? Government bonds? You are risk averse, so stocks are out. The most you probably want to go is something like the ETF AOK (30% equities and 70% bonds), which might see around a 15% decline during terrible market moves. I'd recommend Fixed Income of some kind, bonds, CD's, HYSA, MMF's, whatever. They all pay around the same usually, so it doesn't much matter. There are target maturity date bond funds, where you can buy and keep buying and when they mature, they close their positions and return a bunch of cash to you. Perfect for a known future expense like this.
Too much bonds in AOK. I am 21 so I wanna max growth potential but not exactly yolo into tech if you get what I'm saying.
AOK would be a cautious play. There are many others if you're after risk reduction...and potentially missing "big" gains. QQQMis a good pick tho
Lol. You are a piece of work. I cited the improvements (and cons) on the V100 over the H100. I cited the pros and cons of the COTS TPU. But again, have you ever designed or worked on an ASIC program? Ever gone through tape out? Ever had to redesign everything when the WLM told you everything was AOK? Sorry kiddo, the adults need to get back to work.
Nah man, I’m doin just fine. I traded a bit of my Amazon to put it back into VTI, but I have been pretty steady bullish, particularly on tech, all the way through this. I do have some regrets for my latest trade surrounding FB. It was before that first beat on the run up. Shoulda held, but I was at like 50% in a month. I shouldn’t ask for much more from them though, as my first entry was sub 20. As far as figures I have, you can think what you want. Being underestimated has always been AOK with me.
Never, were NEVER GOING BACK TO REASONABLE LAND. Everything’s AOK in the USA just buy buy buy
Historically, this diversification has never paid off. When the US had its financial crisis, it brought down almost every single country in the world with it. There are some European stock markets that still haven't recovered. People love to assume that this is the year emerging markets will become developed nations and that Europe will start churning out unicorns, but I really can't see it happening. Europe is still Europe, China is still China, and Mexico is still Mexico. The factors that made them unattractive before still make them unattractive right now, and the things that make the US attractive are still very much alive today. The stock culture, size, and strategic geographical location all make the US the best country to invest in. Always has been always will be. I believe in American Exceptionalism, and if you look at the factors that tumbled past empires, the US is invulnerable to most of them, particularly invasion from neighbors. All of that said, Blackrock has some pretty good etfs that will probably cover your needs. AOM, AOA, AOR, and AOK. The only difference between them is the allocation towards fixed income/stocks. Judging by your post, I would think you have no fixed income, so AOA is probably your best bet.
Dollar's good. Everything is AOK. Fuck yourself, kindly.
Well, it's all MMT on the QT, while they use QE on the DL to keep the CPI and S&P AOK for TPTB.
good jobs report means the economy is AOK..
How can a plant that produces MEDICINE, be considered evil? Cannabis has been used as medicine for 5000 years. Regulate,Control,Rationalize Cannabis for sale and use to adults is AOK. Get with the program.
>sure, let's minimize Musks actions to just saying distasteful thinks ignoring how he handled Twitter purchase. Sorry but it is clear how biased you are. You are talking about what one individual did with his own money.. A minority stakeholder in the company. He stupidly (IMHO) bought a company that was bleeding money. It was bound to get messy. You think the people who own the other 80% of Tesla, and the workers, should be boycotted because of what one guy did? But hey, Volkswagen ran 4 concentration camps in WW2 and designed the software system in their car to cheat US emissions test recently. But that is AOK with you. Got it.
They 'won' as in Apple cannot block the entire company's products from using the AppStore (including the ones that are not violating anything). Judge said it's AOK to block Fortnite because it violates the TOS.
GTFO?! VP of IBD for GS?!? That’s AOK IMHO
I hate the new attitude that subprime is a relic of the last. As if your bank is constantly checking your checking account and job status to make sure you’re still AOK to qualify for that mortgage you got five years ago
At least REV was up 15% today. Everything is AOK!
Die Moral von der Geschichte – Teil 2 Möchte man einen fairen Preis für ein Arzneien finden, sind nach den Leitern des wissenschaftlichen Instituts der AOK, Dr. Melanie Schröder und Dr. Carsten Telschow legitime Interessen pharmazeutischen Unternehmens als auch Interessen der Kunden zu berücksichtigen. Als Hauptinteressen der Unternehmen, nennen sie die Deckung der Forschungs- und Entwicklungskosten und die Erwirtschaftung von Profit. Für die Seite der Nachfrager ist der Wert des Arzneimittels für den Einzelnen, als auch die Versorgungssicherheit als zeitgerechte Lieferungen und Finanzierbarkeit der ausreichenden Menge der Interessenskern (Dr. Telschow, Carsten und Dr. Schröder, Melanie (2021): Ethische Sichtweise auf hochpreisige Arzneimittel S.55) . Im offiziellen Sinn schien Turing sich bei der Preisbegründung nur um die eigenen Interessen zu kümmern, doch wie schon behandelt, gab es kaum Patienten die einen Nachteil hatten. Am Ende mussten Versicherungen die erhöhten Preise zahlen. Man kann sogar argumentieren, dass der Preis noch zu niedrig war, da Turing das Geld nutzte um an 13 weiteren Arzneimitteln zu arbeiten . Die allgemeinen Standards der Industrie, nach Telschow und Schröder waren also erfüllt, doch die Frage nach der moralischen Vertretbarkeit der Handlung bleibt noch ungeklärt. Verschiedene Moralbegründungen Als Vertreter der Willens- und Pflichtethik (Deontologie) , geht es dem Philosophen Kant nicht darum, was das Ergebnis einer Handlung ist, sondern um die Intensionen . Die Intention von Shkrelis Firma war in erster Linie, keinen Verlust mehr mit dem Verkauf zu machen und Investoren zufrieden zu stellen. Die Erlöse setzte die Firma dann ein für Forschung. Shkrelis Intention war von Anfang an ein besseres Medikament zu entwickeln, der Grund der Firma war ein kapitalistischer. Shkreli selbst hat also moralisch gehandelt, da sein Ziel war, Menschen zu helfen. Da die Firma die Pflicht hat dem Willen der Investoren nachzukommen, war sie gezwungen Preise zu erhöhen. Dies nennt Kant eine „pflichtgemäße Handlung“, bei dem man sich zwar in äußerer Handlung an die Pflicht hält, aber einem die Pflicht nicht wirklich wichtig ist (es gibt keine innere Neigung als Beweggrund). Es ist also wichtiger sich die Motive der Investoren anzuschauen, wenn sie einfach Geld verdienen wollten und sie bereit waren Menschen dafür sterben zu lassen, dann kann man keinen guten Willen in der Handlung finden. Da die Investoren sich jedoch nie öffentlich dazu äußerten, ist es durchaus möglich, dass sie die gleichen Intensionen wie Martin Shkreli hatten und ihr Wille gut war. Wobei man sich sicher sein kann ist, dass Shkrelis Handeln aus Pflicht, nach Kant, moralisch war, da er kein neues Arzneimittel hätte entwickeln müssen, er es aber aus Achtung vor dem moralischen Gesetz, als seine Pflicht sah und somit nach Kant, moralisch gehandelt hat. In der Ethik der Pflichten geht es auch um das „Sollen“. Das Sollen muss in moralischen Entscheidungen insofern miteinbezogen werden, dass eine Handlung als Handlungsprinzip (Maxime) zu einem allgemeinen (Natur-)Gesetz werden kann . Zu dieser Grundformel kommt noch die Menschheits-Zweck-Formel dazu. Hier soll man die Menschheit aus der Sicht jeder Person, niemals nur als Mittel, sondern immer auch als Zweck gebrauchen . Kein Mensch soll also nur als Instrument genutzt werden , sondern soll auch immer der Beweggrund bzw. das Ziel einer Tätigkeit sein . Es geht dabei darum, die Würde und Freiheit des Menschen zu bewahren. Verbunden, erhält man den sogenannten kategorischen Imperativ. In Shkrelis Fall, wäre die Maxime ähnlich dieser: Ich erhöhe die Preise einer lebenswichtigen, aber schädlichen Arznei um in der Zukunft eine bessere zur Verfügung stellen zu können ohne die bisherigen Konsumenten damit zu belasten. Das sich daraus herleitende Gesetz wäre dann: Medikamentenhersteller sollen Monopolpositionen ausnutzen dürfen, um Medizin weiterentwickeln zu können ohne, dass sie ihren Kunden dabei schaden. Nun muss man mit der eigenen Vernunft bewerten ob man dieses Gesetz wollen kann, wenn ja, dann ist die Tat moralisch. Wenn die Antwort nein ist, dann ist sie es nicht. Im Falle von Daraprim wurde kein Mensch nur als Mittel genutzt, da den Patienten geholfen wurde und das einzige Instrument die Versicherungen waren. Hätten sich die Versicherungsbeiträge dadurch erhöht, dann wäre die amerikanische Bevölkerung tatsächlich als Mittel genutzt worden, doch da die Preiserhöhung kaum Auswirkungen auf die Gelder der Krankenversicherungen hatte, war dies nicht der Fall. Außerdem ist es für Krankenversicherungen immer besser, wenn zum Beispiel Medizin mit weniger Nebenwirkung und entsprechend weniger Not von Begleitarznei oder sogar eine Heilung verfügbar ist, die auf lange Sicht Gelder einsparen. Somit würden auch Krankenversicherungen und somit die amerikanische Bevölkerung nicht nur als Mittel eingesetzt .
Laying off *newly hired* specialists? If I’m playing Devil’s advocate, and I say “well maybe their tech is just so close to being done that they don’t need as many employees!”…that doesn’t really seem logical. A company like tweaks Tsla doesn’t just continuously hire. They hire where there’s need. To immediately fire said people is a flashing, red warning sign that things are not AOK. That, and Elon plainly stating he’s got “super bad” feelings and they need to decrease their staff by 10%…
> But overall, the bigger picture is that he orig purchased for the negative correlation, and for a long term hold. I didn't expect to touch it for at least 5-6 years. TLT is not a 5-6 year hold, it's a 20-30 year hold. Seriously, TLT is something you own literally for the rest of your life. You are going to be invested until the day you die, even in retirement, so your time horizon is WAY longer than you perhaps think. If you need to sell all of your holdings in 5-6 years, than TLT is 100% absolutely the wrong fund for you. > But now I just have the same question- we know that at least 2 more 50bp hikes coming, which is a near certainty to drop TLT more. Maybe below 100? So? The reason you bought TLT was for the (hopefully continued) negative correlation with stocks, there is no good reason currently to think the negative correlation won't continue. > So how do I calculate the risk of opp cost and holding at a loss that will take ? time to recover to break even vs selling now into something less affected by rates, such a a mixed fund like BND as you mentioned? You could do that, but BND won't go up as high during crashes, because the volatility of BND is WAY less than TLT. You bought TLT FOR the volatility and now that it's shown up, you are worried/panicking. That's understandable, but unwise. You bought it specifically because it does wild and crazy things, so that hopefully the next big crash it will skyrocket while stocks crash, and then you rebalance, allowing you to buy stocks super cheap while keeping a positive yield. If you can't handle the volatility, what do you do? The answer, lower the volatility risk, own less equities and own less long term bonds. So something like AOM maybe, which is roughly 50% bonds. Or maybe you need even less equity exposure, something like AOK(about 30% equities). Just know, the lower the risk profile you take on, the less reward you can expect. I totally skipped over your question, because it's not a math problem, it's an emotional problem. Your math problem was solved by your FA, but your emotional situation prevents you from (perhaps) continuing down this path. Only you can answer what is right for you, but it sounds like maybe the FA put you into more risk than you can handle. If that's not the case, then continue to hold. If it is the case, then re-evaluate and pick a risk profile you are comfortable with. You know yourself, you do you. There is no one right answer.
> turns out my personal risk tolerance is way less than I thought So you need to figure out what your risk tolerance is. Clearly margined tech growth stocks are way outside your comfort zone. No worries. Can you handle an all stock portfolio? (hint: many people can't) You went down -40%. A crash can easily go 50 or 60% down if 100% stock(VT or VTI or VOO). So anyone that is recommending you go 100% stock is ridiculous. So you can start super conservative, say the ETF AOK(30% stocks) and wait until the next crash and then re-evaluate. You should expect a worst case around 15%. Or you can start middle of the road say the ETF AOR(60% stocks) and wait until the next crash and then re-evaluate. You should expect a worst case of around 30% down. Or get "aggressive" with AOA (80% stocks). You should expect a worst case of around 35-40% I'd recommend starting in the middle(AOR) and then wait for an actual crash and go from there.
> I’m worried about my portfolio tanking if there actually is some sort of recession. I hate to break it to you, but your portfolio WILL tank eventually for a while(maybe up to a decade). If you have cold feet now, then you probably need to re-think your asset allocation. The problem is, we have no idea when or how long a recession or portfolio tanking will happen. So it's not a matter of IF, but a matter of WHEN and HOW LONG. > Should I still continue to invest into VTSAX or is this strategy too risky and should change? Only you can answer this. Based only on this post here, I'd suggest you think at say 60% equities max or get your perspective shifted in a hurry. Think about investing in equities like investing in your health. You eat right and exercise right not because it helps you today but because it helps you 50+ years from now. Based on most American's health, perhaps the default investing recommendations for Americans should be stuff like AOK(30% equities) and not stuff like VTSAX. > I’m investing for medium - long term You need to define this much better. Anything under 5-10 years probably shouldn't be invested in much equity(if arguably, any at all). I.e. one could make the case for something like AOK which is 30% equities, but anything above that for 5-10 years is probably asking for trouble. Equities are for LONG term, 10+ years, i.e. the entire rest of your life.
OGs make jokes about ducks #BANNED [This shit happens](https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/tlgede) #AOK GUISE
> What's the best lower-risk vehicle for holding cash with reasonable liquidity? It's VERY important that you learn a lesson here: To earn more than cash you MUST take a risk. Serious actual lose it all risk. The more risk you are willing to take, the more likely you are to beat cash. If one took the risk of robbing Fort Knox, assuming you survived the experience and got away with all the gold there, you would instantly be worth roughly the same as the richest people on the planet. The risk(s) there are obvious. The risks in $STOCK or $BOND is much less obvious, but very much real. Thankfully the risk of $STOCK is you lose some money, not your life :) It depends a lot on your risk tolerance. Cash is almost certainly the right answer for you, but you seem to want an answer that isn't cash, so here is what I tell loved ones: * Short Term < 1 year: CASH and friends. * Medium Term (say up to 5-ish years): a fixed AA fund, like FIKFX or AOK (20-30% equities, 70-80% bonds). * Long Term: "aggressive" fixed AA(AOA, FFNOX), 100% VT or a Target Date Fund(TDF). The reasoning: Cash is non-volatile, so for short term you want no risk. For medium term things, you want some growth, but mainly you want the money to be there when you need to spend it. FIKFX/AOK will likely never have more than a 10% draw down. The worst recorded historical case for this is -15% and it didn't last long. So just over-fund by 10% and you will basically always be able to meet your needs. For long term, volatility shouldn't matter or affect you, so go out hard on equities.
Agreed. What helps with that is thinking about this simple question: if for some random reason this stock dropped 20%, while nothing changed, how would I feel? I know I'll feel pretty AOK with holding Google and Microsoft. So I buy that stuff.
Put $10k in I Bonds. And then 20-80 global stocks & bonds. VT/BND AOK is also a good 30-70 single ETF solution.
> What can I look at for investing that’s an in between of an emergency fund and a swing for the stars fund? Is there a name for that? VTINX or AOK.
Why would I be waiting until September to get the premium? I receive it when I sell the option. Even if the stock runs to, 210 let's say by September, then I close the spread for a gain as well. I'd still be locking in a roughly 30% gain on the total position (which is AOK with me)
Well my friend then you haven’t experienced UK’s NIH and Germany’s public health insurance from AOK or TK where it takes months to see specialist doc. Grass is always green on the other side. I got hurt during Christmas vacations and it took me more than a month to see orthopedic doc when I was in Germany. But if I would have private insurance, doc was giving me appointment in the first week of January. Yes health care is a lot expensive here in US but you get what you pay 💰
Check out something like AOK. It's 20% global stocks and 80% global bonds.
Depends on how safe you need it to be. The safest type of ETF that will beat a savings account on average is something like [VGSH](https://investor.vanguard.com/etf/profile/VGSH), a short-term treasury bond fund. For something with more volatility and more long-term return, you could use an aggregate bond fund like [BNDW](https://investor.vanguard.com/etf/profile/BNDW). An ETF with stock allocation, like BlackRock's [AOK](https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239733/ishares-conservative-allocation-etf) with 30% stocks and 70% bonds, would of course be significantly more volatile. You would want to go with one of the first two options if this money is meant to be ready for access at any given time, without risk of falling far below its present value.
Safe in the market is difficult. If you’re nervous I would consider putting it in AOK - I share core conservative allocation etf 30% - 50% equity Or AOM - iShares core moderate allocation etf
Look at these IShares etfs, each holding a mix of other etfs (both bond and equity) that will offer anything from 20-70% bond allocation. AOA - Aggressive Allocation ETF AOM - Moderate Allocation ETF AOK - Conservative Allocation ETF
I have thought about the same thing and would leave in savings account or conservative portfolio like AOK etf.
Congratulations on saving some of your income for investment. That's a great step toward financial independence. One thing to think about is whether or not your 1000Euros is your emergency fund. If it is, make sure you choose an investment that is easy to sell if you need $500 for a car repair or something like that. As far as which one, I have had success with VTI, VGT, and VUG. They are all great for investment and can be accessed if you need cash. Personally, I would avoid sector-specific funds at this stage. People with super large portfolios can use sector funds to hedge and diversify. For the beginning investor, you need something that is balanced and safe. One that I use to keep my spare cash in for emergencies is Blackrock's AOK balanced ETF. It has about a third of your money in stocks, and the remainder in bonds and other safe investments. My reason behind this is, if the market tanks suddenly, you want to keep most of your emergency money. A conservative balanced ETF will provide reassurance that you will lose less than in a 100% stock ETF. As you continue to work and set aside money, those additional funds could then be allocated to something that is 100% equities, such as Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF. Keep going!
What do you think of AOK ETF? I'm looking to add some lower risk funds to my portfolio. Any better alternative?
Had this been true, we would see so many unbelievable riches to AOK wealth or simple middle class lives from second or third generation heirs in the U.S. Making the money is 100% challenging, but keeping it is not really any less challenging.
I'm happy with TAN. ICLN is AOK. They were big on PLUG, but they are rebalancing soon.
If you want legitimate advice on where to park money quite safely in a time of market volatility, I’d go with AOK (assuming you are American).
don't know what a screener is, but more diverse means less chance of being effected by sharp downturns (unless everything downturns), so I'm naturally inclined to point to VTI, VT or related broad funds. Otherwise you could look at AOM or AOK which have a certain amount of money set aside for bonds or specifically seek out low volatility ETFs (can google it, don't know the names)
There is an enthusiasm risk. People are going to price in a strong recovery in retail, travel, and a lot of others... it will almost certainly be an inflated value relative to what is going to come. A bad earnings seasons watches everything deflate as prices come back to reasonable... and then keep dropping as click bait media pushes the inevitable "bubble popped" stories. In my mind, spring is probably locked in for being AOK but summer is the make or break. Either people get spending or show just how acclimated they've become to minimizing spending.
For another example see the ESRB. Gambling in games aimed at kids is AOK when you're regulating yourself!
Funny thing is, during the gme downfall fiasco said Viking tweeted some shit about buying cciv on the dip. On a whim I picked up 200 shares of cciv @$21 because of that tweet. If lucid deal comes through, that dude is AOK in my book