With the this year’s batch of “Where to Invest” market guides now hitting stores, a review of the leading financial publications’ 2011 predictions might serve as a necessary warning for investors bent on following that advice.

A lawsuit brought against Ameriprise Financial by its own employees underscores the importance of minimizing investment costs. But we think there’s another story here that has gone unreported.

Our thoughts on Congress’s well-publicized standoff and the U.S.’s imminent collision with the debt ceiling.

Conventional wisdom suggests investors should favor high-growth economies like China and India in their investment portfolios. But is GDP growth really a precursor to stock market returns?

After accurately predicting the Global Financial Crisis in 2008, Robert Rodriguez and Peter Schiff quickly came to be viewed as investment gurus who could provide shelter from the storm. Investors eagerly followed their advice in anticipation of the fortunes certain to follow. How did they fare?

With enormous resources at their disposal, institutional investors—the so-called “smart money”—should have an advantage in identifying tomorrow’s winning fund managers…but do they?

At nearly half a trillion in assets, the Norwegian Government Pension Fund has a lot going for it: 249 highly-skilled investment managers, no taxes and management fees that are next to nothing. With every advantage an investor could hope for, why couldn’t they outperform a simple index fund?

Research by M.I.T. instructor, Mark Kritzman, revealed that even with higher gross returns, actively managed mutual funds and hedge funds, net of all expenses—fees, trading costs and taxes—leave less in your pocket than a simple index fund.

Morningstar, known for its star rating system, recently conducted a study and found the strongest predictor of a mutual fund’s future performance isn’t it’s star rating, but something completely unexpected.