Well.
Yes, Metz\' solution is surely among the most safe.
--
Concerning choosing which shares to invest in, is one of the main rules
\"
Don\'t listen to what broker says.\"

Brokers earn money on
any trades, so they don\'t bother much if they are good or bad trades they handle. On top of that the majority of them aren\'t any good at analyzing and predicting. Some Swedish journalist made a research where they compared the results of the Swedish brokers recommendations, and the \"choices\" the chimpanzee Ola made by throwing arrows, and the monkey won...
BUT it\'s possible to make money on shares by \"just\" buy close enough to bottom and sell close enough to top. If you can do that, then even random choosing mostly beat bank interest. The odds can be improved much by just make a simple very rough valuation* and buy if it\'s higher than what they cost on the stock marlet.
*A = Obvious assets = money + store and estate adjusted down if you believe they are to optimistic
R = Adjusted result á la me

= the result they tell + developing costs + temporary costs as e g expansion. Then adjust the result if anything special happens as e g an important developing is ready now/soon.
(A + 3 R) divided by total numbers of shares = Rough value.(If reading the Reports and news proper, the valuation can be made much more detailed.)
The economies in some South East Asian countries have developed much better than North America and Europe during the last 10 years, so I believe in a
longer perspective that will continue.
I don\'t know how the Philippine company economy has developed but the GNP (=including public production) has developed very good. The
badest year RP had PLUS 4.5 (2008) when many American and European countries had MINUS.
Two years ago I looked a bit at the Thai stock market just to show an ex how to count roughly. Just looking at around 8 companies by choosing them by what they produce, I found 4 having much better results than bank interest (=around 12, 22, 24, 31 %).
I DON\'T recommend doing as I do, because I often gamble and even put all money at only 1-2 companies, when I have found something I really believe in long term ready to get much better result soon, or something I believe is just negative over reaction. I predicted a half year before the \"IT bubble\" would burst, so I didn\'t had any shares when it happened. Counting from when I started buying after the burst, I have an average of
almost 20 % per year fluctuating between +51 and -20.
If I recount only counting when I used the money for shares then it\'s
a bit over 30 % per year fluctuating between +112 and -20. The best result I got during almost everything else fell !

Earlier I have recommended shares, which have gone up from e g 6 to 16 (very fast) and 44 to 204,
but I don\'t recommend anything since an evil insect (=tick) bite me, gave me TBE virus, almost knocked me out, so I\'m not sure if I think complete now. So now I know how it feels to think normal

A Swedish friend lives on investing his own money. He has grown his money from around 250 000 SEK to 6 000 000 SEK since 1988, although he has lived on them too, including going to Thailand/Philippines many times to look for possible wife

Both above during inflation had been only around 2 - 4 % per year. Bank interests have been very low mostly.
So it\'s possible to beat normal bank interests rather much.