Beyond whether or not a raise in interest rates is going to be have any effect, I was curious to know how relevant a "former" Fed Chairman's opinions are?

I would be interested to see what the pros and cons are of further regulation, and secondly what type of regulatory control the SEC and FINRA have currently, and lastly who regulates the regulators?

It's certainly an interesting hypothesis to suggest that there's a correlation between worldwide geopolitical events and the stock market. I am of the opinion that it is virtually impossible to prove cause and effect scientifically and even harder to do in terms of predicting the future. What we can see is that by looking back in history we can draw parallels between global events and economic repercussions, for example the effect global conflicts or wars have on oil prices, the effects that the fear of terrorist attacks have on stock market indexes like the S&P etc. Seeing patterns of economic cycles in the past does not guarantee any "expert's" ability to predict future economic cycles no better than we can predict when a dormant volcano will re-erupt, or the next earthquake will hit California.

With rising house prices, and increased demand especially on the East and West coasts, perhaps we can tentatively say that the US housing recovery has somewhat resumed, however this doesn't tell the whole picture. Recently, the Commerce Department released data showing that new home construction fell by 17% in February to a seasonally adjusted annual pace of 897,000 units. This key statistic is very telling and shows us that the housing industry is still pretty much in the doldrums. Perhaps the backlog of demand from the long cold winter will push demand on new housing construction, but this remains to be seen at this point.

It would be interesting to see if there is a measurable effect of the recent minimum wage pay hikes that were recently undertaken by Walmart, TJX, Target, and McDonalds. Seems that the trend is now in favor of the already 2 milllion or so employed in these companies, and perhaps, we can also expect to see increased upwards wage pressure on other low wage employers.

And if all this didn't convince you that KO is a good stock to buy, maybe our friend Mr. Buffet can? Quoting Warren Buffet in 1996: Companies such as Coca-Cola and Gillette might well be labeled "The Inevitables." Forecasters may differ a bit in their predictions of exactly how much soft drink or shaving-equipment business these companies will be doing in ten or twenty years.... Indeed, their dominance will probably strengthen. Both companies have significantly expanded their already huge shares of market during the past ten years, and all signs point to their repeating that performance in the next decade.

Quoting Fool.com: Coca-Cola is a global powerhouse, employing about 700,000 people. It has 17 billion-dollar brands, such as Diet Coke, Fanta, Sprite, Coca-Cola Zero, vitaminwater, Powerade, Minute Maid, and Simply. In its own words, "Globally, we are the No. 1 provider of sparkling beverages, ready-to-drink coffees, and juices and juice drinks. Through the world's largest beverage distribution system, consumers in more than 200 countries enjoy our beverages at a rate of 1.9 billion servings a day." It certainly seems like a winner worth investing in.

So if you're as confused as me about the differences between the caps (small, medium, and large) I am adding this thought which gives a brief explanation about what mid caps are, and who they are for (from online-stock-trading-review.com):

Investing in a mid-cap is something of a mixed bag. Many investors look at mid-caps as a long-term investment in a company’s future. Essentially, when you invest in a mid-cap, you hope to help that company become larger over time.

There are also some disadvantages to investing in mid-caps. For example, a mid-cap company is bound to fall harder in a failing market. If you’re looking to make a large profit quickly, you should probably avoid investing in mid-caps. However, you shouldn't ignore mid-caps in a niche market with high potential or mid-caps with a solid history of great performance. If chosen carefully, mid-caps make up a solid portion of a diversified and strong investment portfolio.

So what I got from this is that one year performance of these types of funds is not as relevant to the investor as the long term performance figures. Just something to consider. Happy investing!

The US govt tried QE a number of times in the past. In November 2008, the Fed announced a $600 billion quantitative easing program, and another $1.8 trillion four months later. Eventually the economy recovered but at what cost. Some of the many disadvantages of QE are:

1. It causes the dollar value to decrease

2. Leads to inflation raising prices of consumer goods hurting the people QE was supposed to help.

3. Diminished value of the dollar decreases the ability of the US govt to borrow money from other govts because the dollar buying power is hurt.

4. Can ultimately lead to a consumer war (perhaps this is where we are closest to heading right now after the Swiss abandoned its cap on the Swiss Franc that sent its value surging). Which country is next to head down the same road as Switzerland?

This sounds like a win/win situation for Apple and First Solar. Not only does Apple greatly benefit form 130 megawatts of pretty much free electricity but the company is able to diversify beyond its staple Iphone/Ipad dependency. After this news broke yesterday, Barclays analyst Ben Reitzes told CNBC that Apple's free cash flow is "mind-blowing" and can push shares of the tech giant to $150.

WTI sank over 4% yesterday down to almost $50 but no-one knows the bottom and word is out there that $20 a barrel is not impossible. So long as OPEC supply policy, and the US shale production are at the current levels, there's no knowing how low it will go.