Everything You Need to Know about Insider Trading

by Insider Alert Research Team

Insider trading.

You might have heard the term back in 2011 when Peter Schweizer’s book, “Throw Them All Out,” first caught the attention of 60 Minutes and quickly ignited a firestorm of controversy.

In “Throw Them All Out,” Schweizer detailed numerous examples of congressional corruption, including our lawmakers’ habit of legislating themselves exclusive loopholes to profit off of the rules and regulations they shackle the rest of us with. That includes insider trading.

Let me explain…

Insider trading, at its very basic, is when somebody with special knowledge about a company decides to either buy or sell shares or security of said company. Usually this is somebody high up on the corporate ladder but, as Briefing Investor explains it, it can also include “officers and directors of companies, owners of restricted stock, and owners of more than 10% of a company’s stock.”

What’s wrong with that, you might ask?

Well, that’s where things start to get a bit more complicated.

You see, when the stock market crashed in 1929, setting off the Great Depression, a lot of blame started flying around pretty quickly as blame usually does. And while the government was in part responsible for the mess and definitely for the ensuing chaos, it didn’t want to acknowledge that blatant fact.

So, for better or worse, it began meddling in the private sector more than it already had been.

In 1934, Congress passed the Securities Exchange Act, which was promptly signed by President Franklin Delanor Roosevelt. Arguably the first of its kind – at least on the federal level – it placed strict controls on publicly traded companies with the stated intention of evening the playing field against the “fat cats” on Wall Street and in favor of main street.

Among the long list of regulations the Securities Exchange Act outlawed were:

• Using any “device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,” investors, essentially requiring companies to list all relevant information about their businesses, profits, etc. or, as Cornell University Law School explains it, anything “that investors would think was important to their decision to buy or sell the stock”
• Manipulating the market to suggest that stocks are worth more than they actually are
• Employee purchases or sales of ownership in a company without first making the public aware of the transaction, also known as insider trading

Altogether, the Act was supposed to force companies to behave more ethically and investors to act more intelligently, with the combined result of keeping the markets from crashing again. The same was true for the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which demanded even more transparency from businesses, adding additional paperwork for them to fill out and information they had to release.

Obviously, neither have prevented very much, as evidenced by the multiple stock market crashes and recessions 1934, corporate scandals such as Enron, WorldCom and Satyam, as well as the government-connected Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, corporate crooks such as Bernie Madoff and Jon Corzine, and Raj Rajaratnam and the other 55 people who have been charged with insider trading since 2009.

And those are just the ones who get caught!

That also isn’t to mention that company’s are really quite clever about following the letter of the law rather than the spirit much of the time. (Though it’s hard to blame them sometimes when they have to follow so many of said laws.)

As Cornell University explains:

Section 9 of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act “addresses manipulation of the stock market by traders… However, modern market manipulation is accomplished through methods that are more subtle and harder to detect… [partially because] investors must prove that the price was actually affected by the manipulation, and that the defendant acted willfully. Proving damages also involves proving the actual value, since successful claimants may recover the difference between the actual value and the price they paid.”

And the same can be said of many other aspects of insider trading law, as discussed further on.

Their Insider Pain Can Be Your Outsider Gain

Regardless of whether either the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 were right or wrong, helpful or harmful, effective or ineffective, or even selfishly or selflessly motivated, they are the reality that the publicly-traded business world has to operate under in the United States.

As the aforementioned “Throw Them All Out” by Peter Schweizer pointed out, Congress doesn’t have to abide by any such rules since they loopholed themselves right out of any such responsibility or accountability, but that’s another topic for another article.

In the meantime, average investors can get ahead of the game if they only have the know-how and commitment to utilize their resources properly. (For anybody who doesn’t have the time or inclination to not only look into the following resources but follow them up and research the company as well, consider Alex Green’s Insider Alert, which does all of that work for you. For more information about the Oxford Club service, click here.)

Unless you want to get into the world of shorting stocks, forget paying that much attention to when insiders are selling. Partially that’s because there are at least a dozen good reasons for company employers or head honchos to sell what they have. And most of them are personal, having nothing to do with the company’s short-term, mid-term or long-term growth.

The chief financial officer might have a daughter going off to college, the CEO might be buying a new house, or the vice president’s young son might require a costly medical treatment. And an easy way for any of them to get the finances necessary for any of those purchases is by selling off some of their shares.

Now, if the CFO, CEO and VP are all selling at the same time, that’s reason to think twice about investing in the company. But if it’s just one or even two corporate insiders offloading some shares, more than likely, it isn’t in any danger of becoming the next Lehman Brothers.

On the other hand, there is only one reason that insiders buy, and that is that they expect their company to do well in the near future. And, let’s face it: Out of all of the analysts, investors and industry experts who like to spout their opinions at every opportunity, it’s the insiders who should know the best how their company is really doing and what it is really capable of accomplishing.

Back in 2009, Alexander Green, who edits the Insider Alert, wrote how, in 2008, he discovered that:

“David Abrams, a Director of Crown Castle International made the single-largest insider purchase in the nation. He bought 4.5 million shares at a cost of more than $60 million.

“Based in Houston, Crown Castle leases cell towers and antenna space to wireless communications companies. Most of these are in the United States, although more than 1,400 are in Australia.

• The company has more than 24,000 towers in prime markets and is actively building more to lease.
• Recent earnings, released earlier in the month, contained a few surprises.
• While earnings were in the red, revenue was still growing at 9%. And I noticed that site rental revenue, gross margins and recurring cash flow all exceeded expectations.
• Moreover, the company had lost three-quarters of its market value and was selling below book value.”

Triggered by the SEC filings that Abrams legally had to file within two days of his purchase, Alex was able to identify it as a potential growth stock worth targeting. But he didn’t stop there, taking the additional necessary step of researching the company from what it did to how and how well it did it.

Then he recommended Crown Castle International to his Insider Alert subscribers and he watched it.

Of course, the markets weren’t behaving well in 2008. At all. Yet two months later, the stock had shot up 58%. And Alex was able to lead subscribers to that significant short-term gain all because he was paying attention to what the insiders were doing.

Insider Activity Isn’t So Easy to Find

As previously mentioned, while insider trading can prove extremely lucrative, it isn’t always the easiest task to interpret or even find.

For starters, the SEC – in typical governmental fashion – doesn’t just have one generic form for insiders to fill out whenever they’re making a transaction. They have multiple ones, including:

• Form 3 filings, which officially record how much an insider owns
• Form 4 filings, which officially record any changes to what an insider owns
• Form 5 filings, which basically sum up everything recorded in Form 4 filings for the year
• Form 13D filings, which have to be filled out as soon as a shareholder owns 5% or more of a company’s shares or securities
• Form 144 filings, which officially record the POSSIBLE sale of what an insider owns (No sale actually has to be made, so someone like a CEO can just keep filing Form 144s every 90 days just in case he does want to someday sell something.)

Starting to get the picture?

And it gets even more complicated than that…

As Briefing Investor says: “Unfortunately, even if you could access all insider filings electronically as an Internet investor [which you can’t, considering that much of the data doesn’t ever have to make it onto the internet or any traditional news source either], the time requirements on these forms does not always prove helpful. Form 144s must be filed in advance of the actual sale, but it may be done as early as the morning of the sale.”

In other words: not helpful at all. The same goes for Form 4 filings, which are submitted to the SEC after any changes are made, not before or even during.

Any savvy businessperson or anybody with access to a decent legal advisor can easily get around the rules and regulations – though not the paperwork – to profit just about as nicely as he or she would if the government didn’t meddle as much as it does.

Clearly, researching insider trading with the intent of capitalizing on it can easily become a complicated and unhelpful mess for anybody who doesn’t know exactly what they’re doing or at least knows somebody who does.

But for those who can successfully navigate the complicated, convoluted world of insider trading, there’s major money to be had.

Is Your Investment Advisor Capitalizing on Your Fear?

Is Your Investment Advisor Capitalizing on Your Fear?

by Alexander Green, Investment U Chief Investment Strategist

Monday, January 16, 2012: Issue #1687

Make no mistake. Investors are petrified right now. And they’re telling their investment advisors about it.

The question is: “What is he or she doing in response?” If the answer is adjusting your asset allocation, focusing on your long-term investment goals, or doing a bit of handholding, you probably have a good one.

But if they’re preying on your emotional state with unsuitable investments or all-or-nothing advice, beware.

The story is as old as equity investing itself. When times are good, investors get complacent, take too much risk and generally regret it. When times are bad, investors become anxiety-ridden, take too little risk and generally regret it. Seasoned advisors know this and try to keep you on the right track. But less knowledgeable or less scrupulous advisors may try to take advantage of your worries.

For instance, your investment advisor may recommend that you load up on variable annuities in this uncertain environment. Not a good idea. Some annuities are right for some people. They offer tax-deferred compounding (like an IRA) and a principal guarantee. But the typical annuity is ridiculously expensive, offers mediocre insurance coverage, restricts your investment choices to so-so mutual funds, lacks liquidity and comes with enormous surrender penalties.

Too many investors learn these things about annuities after they’ve plunked for one. Hence, you’ll often hear investors complain that they are “stuck in an annuity” for several years. Investigate these insurance contracts before you invest. On the whole they are oversold, frequently misrepresented and completely inappropriate for many folks.

Another sign that you have a misguided (or unethical) investment advisor is if he suggests that you abandon proven investment principles. For example, if your investment plan is based on a broker’s economic forecast or market timing advice, good luck. You’re going to need it.

No one can accurately predict the economy with any consistency. And it wouldn’t really matter if they could. Stocks routinely rally during the bad times and sell-off during the good ones. If your investment advisor doesn’t know this, you shouldn’t be using her. If she does and is still trying to convince you to flee the market, that’s even worse.

Also beware investment advisors who are paid on a transaction basis and therefore have an incentive for you to trade more frequently. Some brokers today are telling their clients that the old rules no longer apply, that you need to jump in and out of the market and from stock to stock. For a commission-based broker, this can be entirely self-serving advice. And it is almost certain to end badly… at least for the client.

I know it’s tough to buy – or just hang in there – when the outlook is dark. But look back at history. The market was a screaming “Buy” after the crash of ’87, the bear market of 1990, the tech wreck of 1994, the Asian Contagion of 1997, the 2000 to 2002 bear market, and even during the depths of the financial crisis in 2008.

If you’re using an advisor who insists that “this time it’s different,” you might reasonably examine his experience, his ethics and his disciplinary history. And seek out more-qualified advice.

Good Investing,

Alexander Green

Why the Gold Slump is Not Over

Why the Gold Slump is Not Over

by Alexander Green, Investment U Chief Investment Strategist
Monday, January 09, 2012: Issue #1682

Not long ago, my colleague Mark Skousen asked a roomful of attendees at an investment conference how many of them owned gold. Virtually every hand in the room went up.

“And how many of you have ever sold any of your gold?”

Virtually every hand in the room came down.

For many investors, gold is their “forever investment,” the one asset they never plan to sell. That could be a mistake, a big one.

I can assure you that the institutional investors who have bid gold up the last few years consider the metal a “hot date,” not a long-term marriage. And that bodes ill for prices in the short to medium term.

Yes, I was bearish on gold a year ago. But I’m more bearish on it today. After all, the trend is your friend.

True, gold went up in the first half of 2011 and didn’t peak until August. But take a look at a five-month chart.

It’s not a pretty picture.

Of course, gold is hard to value under the best of circumstances. It has very few industrial uses. It generates no earnings, pays no dividends, accrues no interest and provides no rental income. That means the best any of us can do is guess where it’s headed next.

So why am I guessing it will be lower? Let me count the ways:

1. Gold is a wonderful inflation hedge. But the metal is up more than five-fold over the last 12 years and inflation is still not a problem. Is it not conceivable that inflation could tick up and gold – having already discounted this – moves lower?

2. Gold is a great performer in an economic crisis. But we already had the crisis. It ended in 2008. Things are getting slowly better, not worse.

3. With gold prices still in the stratosphere and the value of the rupee falling, India – the world’s biggest consumer of gold – is likely to experience a pronounced drop-off in demand this year. Not good.

4. Gold is now well above the marginal cost of production. New mines are opening and old mines are re-opening. It’s Economics 101. Greater supply depresses prices.

5. If you believe the gargantuan debt load that Washington has run up will cause gold to rally from here, you may want to think again. Japan’s debt load as a percentage of GDP is more than twice ours and the end result has been disinflation, not inflation. Why will it be different this time? Indeed, George Soros and several other major speculators are openly forecasting outright deflation. That would not be good for gold.

6. Note that while gold ended the year up in 2011, gold shares dropped 16%. Already, equity investors are taking a dim view of the sustainability of gold’s advance. I think they’re right.

7. Investment demand for gold has soared in recent years. Seven years ago, it made up just 16% of total demand. Today it’s more than 40%. But hedge fund managers who piled into gold, unlike Mom and Pop, have no emotional commitment to the metal. These are hair-trigger traders. When the primary trend turns unequivocally south, you can bet these guys will dump gold faster than a freshman girlfriend.

I’m not suggesting that anyone bail out of gold. You should hold at least 5% of your liquid assets in gold and gold stocks, and perhaps more. But if you’re one of those folks I meet who has 30%, 50% … even 80% in the barbarous relic, you’re really sitting at the roulette table at 3 AM.

No one can say unequivocally that the bet won’t pay off. But there could be a steep price to pay if it doesn’t. The last time gold was a bubble, investors were down more than 60% two decades later.

As Mark Twain said, “History may not repeat itself. But it rhymes.”

Good Investing,

Alexander Green

The Best Buy Signal of 2012

The Best Buy Signal of 2012

by Alexander Green, Investment U Chief Investment Strategist
Monday, January 02, 2012: Issue #1677

Investors are scared right now and it’s not hard to see why.

Economic growth is anemic. Unemployment is high. Banks are saddled with toxic assets. Problems in the Eurozone continue to fester. Residential real estate is sinking in a mire of short sales and foreclosures. And both federal and state governments – not to mention consumers themselves – are drowning in a sea of red ink.

We have all heard these negatives repeated daily and cycled endlessly in the national media.

However, these reports often leave out or play down the good news: Inflation is low. Short-term rates are near zero. Energy and food prices are declining. Emerging market economies – which are end markets for the developed world – are still booming. Corporate profits are at an all-time record – and have been for seven quarters now. And stock valuations are low. (The S&P 500 has historically traded at an average of 16 times earnings. Today it’s less than 14 times earnings.)

Last year I shared another key insight with you. It has always been a positive indicator for stocks when the Dow yields more than Treasury bonds.

This makes sense when you think about it. Shares are riskier than bonds. Investors should demand a higher yield. Yet almost never since 1958 have stocks yielded more than Treasuries. Today they do, however. The 10-year bond yields just two percent. The Dow yields 30 percent more.

If you’re still not convinced that equities are a good place to be in 2012, let me draw your attention to one of the strongest indicators of all…

Contrarian Investing Works

It’s a truism that no one consistently predicts the stock market. (That’s why money manager and Forbes 400 member Ken Fisher calls it “The Great Humiliator.”) However, there’s a straightforward system that offers a reasonable prospect of timing the market reasonably well in the future.

A 25-year study published last year in The Journal of Financial Economics found that if you had simply invested in the S&P 500 when equity fund flows were negative (redemptions exceeded new investments) and into 90-day Treasury bills when fund flows were positive (new investments exceeded redemptions) you would have substantially outperformed the market while spending nearly half the time in riskless T-bills.

In other words, contrarian investing works. This system would have you do the very inverse of what the great mass of investors is doing. (It turns out they have god-awful instincts, so it pays to buck the consensus.)

Bear in mind, if you’d followed this system, you wouldn’t just have earned higher returns than being fully invested. You would have done it with far less risk, spending nearly half the time in riskless T-bills.

I mention this because the Investment Company Institute recently reported that investors are yanking billions out of equity funds virtually every week and pouring the money into ultra-low-paying money market accounts. The Wall Street Journal further reports that “investors have continued to consistently pull money from U.S. equity funds since August.”

I’m trying to contain my glee. Who says no one rings a bell in the stock market?

The fear and pessimism about both the economy and the stock market are way overdone and fully discounted in current stock prices. If you can’t be stirred by low interest rates, low inflation, low valuations and record profits, you really should ask yourself two important questions:

1. Is logic or emotion governing my decision making about my portfolio?

2. If I don’t invest in stocks – the greatest wealth creator of all time – how am I going to meet my long-term financial goals?

We’ll talk more about these issues in the weeks ahead. But, for the record, I think 2012 will be a good year for the stock market and – although virtually no one expects or believes it – perhaps even a barnburner.

Good Investing,

Alexander Green

Capitalize on the Most Dangerous Tech Trend in 2012

Capitalize on the Most Dangerous Tech Trend in 2012

by Alexander Green, Investment U Chief Investment Strategist
Thursday, December 16, 2011: Issue #1666

[Editor's Note: Independent Online reported on Thursday, "Hackers are bombarding the world's computer controlled energy sector, conducting industrial espionage and threatening potential global havoc through oil supply disruption."

Ludolf Luehmann, an IT manager at Shell Europe's biggest company, told the publication, "It will cost lives and it will cost production, it will cost money, cause fires and cause loss of containment, environmental damage - huge, huge damage."

In light of this chilling warning, along with recent developments on the latest super-bug, Duqu, we decided that Alexander Green's May article about cyber crime and cyber security was as relevant as ever. Alex has been pounding the table on cyber security stocks since 2009 and believes that 2012 will be the tipping point. Find out why he's so bullish on the sector below…]

Do you want to score big in the stock market? Then recognize an unstoppable trend and get on the gravy train before it’s too late.

In the 80s, for example, investors scored big in cable television and cellphones. Huge money was made again in the 90s on internet and technology shares. Commodities like oil and gas – and gold and silver – made investors millions over the past decade. Now an even bigger trend is emerging. Yet I estimate that not one investor in 10 has a nickel invested yet.

Consider this your wake-up call.

The internet was originally intended for a few thousand researchers, not billions of users who don’t know or trust each other. The designers placed a premium on ease of use and decentralization, not privacy and security. They never dreamed the internet would ultimately be used for trillions of commercial transactions.

And where there are great gobs of money, you will always find thieves…

Cybercrime Tops Physical Crime in 2011

Last year, for example, one out of every four companies had information, goods, or money successfully stolen by cyber criminals. (For the first year ever, the total cost of electronic theft actually topped that of physical theft.) Your social security number, personal history and medical information, your credit card numbers, even the cash you have in trusted financial institutions, are all at potential risk.

You may have read the reports a few weeks ago that Sony was forced to shut down its PlayStation network due to hackers who stole users’ information. Even top technology companies are often powerless to stop cyber crime. Sony recently admitted that it had already been hacked several times before.

This is not unusual. Companies are reluctant to admit that they have been violated by cyber criminals. Why? Number one, they don’t want to reveal their vulnerabilities to other potential hackers. Even more importantly, they are scared – and for good reason – that they’ll lose the confidence of their customers.

Yet that’s about to change. I expect the SEC to soon compel public companies to disclose their cyber-attack vulnerabilities. A group of lawmakers – including Jay Rockefeller, the powerful Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee – has already sent a letter to the SEC asking it to issue guidance on cyber security.

The letter says, “In light of the growing threat and the national security and economic ramifications of successful attacks against American businesses, it is essential that corporate leaders know their responsibility for managing and disclosing information security risk.”

This is no idle threat. A 2009 study by insurance underwriter Hiscox found that 38 percent of Fortune 500 companies neglected to disclose the risk of data-security breaches in their public filings.

Capitalizing on Cyber Security

Does anyone really believe the SEC isn’t going to move on this issue? (Update: In October, the SEC announced that it was finally going to require more disclosure from companies on cyber attacks.)

The questions that you should be asking as an investor are, “Who is likely to benefit from this development?” and, “Where should I invest to capitalize on this trend?”

A small cadre of companies is working to protect consumers, businesses and government agencies against a wide array of cyber threats. Most of them are already highly profitable.

But tens of billions more of government money will soon be spent beefing up national security, protecting U.S. infrastructure and safeguarding the financial system. And businesses – increasingly aware that everything from research papers to client lists are being targeted by criminals and corporate spies – will soon spend billions more in this area, too.

This is a ride you won’t want to miss.

Good investing,

Alexander Green

Why This Market Truism Just Isn’t True

Why This Market Truism Just Isn’t True

by Alexander Green, Investment U Chief Investment Strategist
Monday, December 5, 2011: Issue #1657

In my first book, The Gone Fishin’ Portfolio, I made a confession that startled some readers…

I retired from the investment services industry while I was still in my early 40s, but many of my clients had not become financially independent. This was not because I advised them poorly. I dealt with my clients honestly and gave them the best advice and service I could.

Yet, in many ways, they operated at a disadvantage. Some had a poor understanding of investment fundamentals. Others found it impossible to commit to a long-term investment plan. Many were simply too emotional about the markets, running to cash at the first hint of danger.

Contrarian instincts are rare, too, I learned. Few people are emotionally stirred by low stock prices. But every time there was a correction, a crash, or financial panic, my Scottish blood would surge, my pulse would rise, I’d rub my hands together, and start buying.

My clients, on the other hand, often did just the opposite, sometimes because they were too nervous but often because they bought into the old chestnut that a good investor doesn’t buy into a market downturn.

“The trend is your friend,” they’d say. Or “Don’t try to catch a falling knife.” This is surely the conventional wisdom in some quarters, but it’s not particularly wise. Here’s why …

For the last several months, traders have obsessed over problems in the Eurozone and the strength (or perceived weakness) of the U.S. economy. Taking a decidedly downbeat view, the market had a pretty horrendous November. But sentiment can turn on a dime and stocks can put on a furious – and completely unexpected – rally.

If you don’t already own stocks, it’s tough to catch the train after it has left the station.

Yet many gurus, including growth-stock advocate William O’Neill and his widely read publication Investor’s Business Daily, often insist that you shouldn’t but a stock unless the market itself is in a confirmed uptrend.

That may make sense in theory, but it often fails in practice. For instance, on page one each day, that paper reports whether the market is in a confirmed uptrend or downtrend. (And sometimes hedges, using language such as “Uptrend Under Pressure.”)

As we all know, this has been a volatile year for the market with the major indices bouncing up and down repeatedly. But you could hardly have chosen a worse strategy than to wait until the market was in a confirmed uptrend before buying. All that meant was that you bought into every short-term spike and then hit your trailing stops over and over again. (It must feel like banging your head against the wall.)

The Oxford Club has hit a number of its stops this year, too, sometimes protecting profits, other times protecting principal. But by buying great companies when the market was under pressure, we ended up with a lot of attractive entry points and plenty of both realized and unrealized profits.

True, if stocks go into a secular bear market, you can end with losses no matter how well you timed your entry points. However, you can never know whether a market drop is merely a correction or something more ominous until you are looking in the rear-view mirror.

You have to stick your neck out occasionally, pick your spots and buy stocks. If you don’t, what are you going to do? Buy bonds yielding 2.5 percent? Hold a money market paying less than one-tenth of one percent? It’s tough to beat inflation or meet your financial goals that way.

Let me make one thing clear, however. It’s most definitely a mistake to buy a troubled company that’s in a downtrend, no matter which way the broad market is heading. (That only works for those with exceptionally long time horizons – and often not even then.) But buying great companies when the broad market is a downtrend gives you a chance to obtain good prices on fine long-term investments and take advantage of tradable short-term rallies, too.

The next two months are traditionally one of the strongest periods for the stock market. No one can say, of course, whether that tradition will hold. But it’s a reasonable strategy to buy great companies when the market is down.

If your goal is to sell high, you have to start by buying low. And market corrections – like the one we’ve seen lately – give you an excellent opportunity to do just that.

Good investing,

Alexander Green

The Best Trade You Can Make in November

The Best Trade You Can Make in November

by Alexander Green, Investment U Chief Investment Strategist
Thursday, November 24, 2011: Issue #1650

In December 1996, I sold some shares of Best Buy (NYSE: BBY) to offset gains elsewhere in my portfolio.

I still consider it the most boneheaded investment move I ever made. A year later, the stock was up more than five-fold. A few years further on, it was up more than thirty-fold.

The worst part is that I didn’t dislike the business prospects for Best Buy at the time. Quite the contrary, in fact. I sold it only because I had substantial capital gains and was cleaning out my portfolio to offset them.

I don’t always do that any more. And you shouldn’t necessarily, either. Despite what your tax advisor may tell you, you should never sell an investment for tax reasons alone. Nor do you have to.

Here’s why…

The IRS allows you to offset realized gains with realized losses each calendar year. If you do, however, you must wait at least 30 days before buying the same shares back. (Otherwise you run afoul of the wash-sale rule.)

Offsetting gains at the end of the year is often a sensible move. Most stocks aren’t appreciably higher 30 days later. And if you still like them, you can buy them back then.

There is a risk, however, and it’s called the January effect. The first month of the year is traditionally a strong one for the market. A lot of pension and IRA money gets invested early each year. Plus, there’s often a rebound from the tax-loss selling that goes on each December.

If a stock you own soars in January, there’s a natural reluctance to buy it back. The temptation is to wait until it comes back down. But what if it doesn’t? You’ve taken a limited loss but sold an investment with unlimited upside potential.

There’s a way around this problem, however. And you can take advantage of it – but only if you’re willing to move this week.

In late November each year, I look at my entire portfolio for any companies that are trading below my entry price but NOT near my trailing stops. If I still like a stock, I often make the decision to double down on it for 30 days.

Why? Because I can sell the original shares at the end of December for a tax loss. And if the stock rallies in January, it’s not a problem. After all, thanks to my purchase in November, I own the same number of shares as I bought originally.

What if you don’t have the cash to double down on your position? Use margin. Again, I’m recommending this only for a 30-day period. Your margin interest charge will be minimal.

The risk, of course, is that your shares will be worth less in late December and you will have a paper loss on the second purchase.

However, just the opposite may happen. Remember, the January effect is often preceded by the Santa Claus rally, the tendency of the stock market to do well in the second half of December. As a result, you could end up with a smaller loss in your original shares and a paper gain on your second purchase.

(The Santa Claus rally is never certain, of course, and another reason why you should only add to those companies whose earnings prospects remain strong.)

Bear in mind, when selling for tax purposes, the IRS requires that you buy those identical shares AT LEAST 30 days before you sell the others. So if you want to use this strategy for 2011, you must act this week.

If we have the traditional mid-December to early February rally, you’ll thank me. And then perhaps again on April 15.

Good investing,

Alexander Green

Warren Buffett Just Said “Buy!”

Warren Buffett Just Said “Buy!”

by Alexander Green, Investment U Chief Investment Strategist
Monday, November 21, 2011: Issue #1647

If you needed heart surgery, you’d try to find the most talented heart surgeon around.

If you were about to be subjected to a full audit by the IRS, you’d hire the most capable tax advisor you could find.

And if you needed investment advice? I hope you’re not one of them, but I know some folks who would read financial blogs by complete unknowns, take hot tips from friends and colleagues, or listen to a sales pitch from someone selling insurance or other financial products.

Big mistake. It makes a lot more sense to listen to the world’s smartest investors, instead. And one of the very best – if not the best – is Berkshire Hathaway Chairman Warren Buffett. (Ten thousand dollars invested in Berkshire Hathaway when Buffett took the helm in 1965 is worth well over $65 million today.)

And thanks to disclosures last week, we now know what Buffett has been doing during the last few months of crazy market activity. He’s been buying.

Specifically, Buffett has plowed $10.7 billion into IBM. He has increased his stake in Wells Fargo from 361.4 million shares to 352.3 million shares. He has boosted his Dollar General stake to 4.5 million shares from 1.5 million. And he has increased his holdings in insurer Torchmark to 4.2 million shares from 2.8 million.

There are a few interesting things to note here. The first is that while most investors have been either running to cash or nervously sitting on their hands lately, Buffett has been actively capitalizing on fresh opportunities. You should be doing the same.

Second, it’s worth mentioning that Buffett has generally avoided technology stocks like IBM. But upon reading not some super-secret briefing but rather the firm’s annual report, he learned that IBM enjoys an entrenched position providing technology services to major businesses.

Buffett likes companies with a “moat” like this and has famously said that his favorite holding period is “forever.” Indeed, he recently told The Washington Post that “IBM fits all my principles … it’s something we’d like to own indefinitely.”

Then there’s the price he paid for IBM. I often get emails from readers who are baffled that I sometimes recommend companies trading at or near their highs. Buffett bought IBM as it hit new highs – even as the broad market was cratering. Indeed, the stock has more than doubled since the depth of the 2008 recession.

Buffett’s response? He says the fact that IBM has doubled doesn’t bother him. Indeed, over the years he could have bought the firm at a tiny fraction of its current price. “What matters is what the company does in the future,” says Buffett.

There are a number of important lessons here:

1. As Buffett often points out, you should be greedy when other investors are fearful.

2. You shouldn’t be reluctant to modify your investment approach a bit (as Buffett has with one of his first significant forays into technology).

3. You shouldn’t fret about how much cheaper a stock was in the past if the business is sound and growing today.

And when it comes to investment advice, history shows it pays to listen to the best of the best. That’s one reason we’ve owned Berkshire Hathaway in our Oxford All-Star Portfolio for well over a decade.

Good investing,

Alexander Green

The One Place to Invest for Growth, Income… and Safety

The One Place to Invest for Growth, Income… and Safety

by Alexander Green, Investment U Chief Investment Strategist
Monday, November 14, 2011: Issue #1642

Eight weeks ago, I wrote an Investment U column pounding the table for dividend stocks. Since then, they’ve ratcheted higher, but I still see plenty of upside ahead.

Someone who shares my enthusiasm for high-yield stocks right now is my friend and former colleague Rick Pfeifer, Senior Portfolio Manager at Fund Advisors of America, a  Florida-based money management firm.

On a recent trip to the sunshine state, I stopped into his office to hear why he, too, feels this is one of the best places to put your money to work today.

Q: Rick, there’s an awful lot of fear and anxiety about the economy and the stock market right now. Investors are confused and uncertain about what to do with their money. What is your take on things?

A: In a market as volatile as this, you have to spread your bets. But my take is this: If you’re looking for growth, buy dividend-paying stocks.

If you’re looking for income, buy dividend-paying stocks. If you’re looking for safety, buy dividend-paying stocks.

Q: Why?

A: The first question every investor has to ask himself is, “How should I divide my money among stocks, bonds and cash?”

The average money market fund currently pays two one-hundredths of one percent. At that rate, you will double your money in just 3,600 years.

Q: Not terribly attractive.

A: Definitely not.

And Treasury yields won’t make you jump up and click your heels, either. The 10-year guy is yielding two percent, which translates – at best – to a zero-percent yield after inflation.

Q: Tough to meet your investment goals that way.

A: Right.

In my view, dividend stocks are a good place to be right now for several reasons. Let’s talk about safety first. When the Dow traded at these levels 11 ½ years ago, it sold for 47 times earnings. Today it trades at less than 14 times earnings. Stocks are cheap right now on the basis of sales and earnings.

But even during market declines, dividend-paying stocks hold up better than non-dividend-paying stocks and sometimes fight the broad trend and rise in value. The reason is obvious. These tend to be mature, profitable companies with stable outlooks, plenty of cash and long-term staying power.

Q: U.S. companies are sitting on a record amount of cash now, too, right?

A: Correct.

U.S. companies currently hold more than $2 trillion in cash, a record. Thanks to this economy and the current Administration (don’t get me started), companies aren’t hiring and they’re not boosting spending. So a lot of this cash is rightfully going back to shareholders.

The Dow currently yields more than bonds. And dividend growth among U.S. companies has averaged 10 percent per year over the last two years, more than double the long-term dividend growth rate.

Q: Okay. Dividend stocks are less risky than non-dividend payers and currently pay more than cash or bonds. But how do you think this group will perform in the years ahead?

A: We can only use long-term historical performance as a guide, but the numbers are pretty darn encouraging. Over the last 50 years, for instance, the highest 20 percent yielding stocks in the S&P 500 returned 14.2 percent annually.

That’s good enough to double your money every five years – or quadruple it in 10. And if you were even more selective, say investing only in the 10 highest yielding stocks of the 100 largest companies in the S&P 500, your annual return would have been even better, 15.7 percent.

Q: We should add the standard caveat here about past performance and point out that there are risks with dividend stocks, too, right?

A: Indeed. You have to be selective. An investor would be foolish to plunk for a stock just because the dividend is large. The market is full of “dividend traps,” troubled companies that pay hefty dividends to keep investors from bailing out.

Q: How does an investor avoid those?

A: Mainly, by doing his or her homework. You need to look at prospective sales and earnings growth. You have to examine the balance sheet and make sure that the company isn’t too highly leveraged.

You have to note cash balances. And, perhaps most importantly, you need to analyze whether the payout ratio is sustainable.

Q: So can you give us a few examples of high-yielders that have you been buying in your managed accounts lately?

A: I’ve been nibbling at Windstream Corp. (Nasdaq: WIN), a well-run communications and networking company with an 8.3-percent current yield. I like oil and gas producer Enerplus (NYSE: ERF), with its high operating margins and 7.7-percent dividend.

And – this one is a bit different – I’ve been picking up a 10.3-percent yield with the Gabelli Global Gold Trust (AMEX: GGN). There are plenty of other attractive high-yield situations out there, too. They should be owned, of course, as part of a more broadly diversified portfolio.

Q: I agree, Rick. Thanks for your time. Let’s chat about this sector again in a few weeks.

Good investing,

Alexander Green

Why Things Are Looking “UUP” for the Dollar

Why Things Are Looking “UUP” for the Dollar

by Alexander Green, Investment U Chief Investment Strategist
Monday, September 19, 2011: Issue #1603

On July 28, I wrote a column recommending Market Vectors Double Short Euro ETN (NYSE: DRR) as a way to take advantage of growing problems in the Eurozone.

Since then, that ETF has jumped 7 percent. I see more upside in that fund.

However, today I’m going to recommend another way to take advantage of an oversold dollar: PowerShares DB US Dollar Index Bullish (NYSE: UUP). It’s likely to rally in the months ahead.

Here’s why…

Two weeks ago, I was in France and the U.K. on personal business. As anyone who travels to this part of the world knows, every time you change a Ben Franklin, you get back a couple of bills and a smattering of coins. The almighty dollar doesn’t go far in this part of the world.

My cab ride from Heathrow to Notting Hill cost $120. A pizza and a coke was $35. And you can forget about finding any bargains at Harrods these days.

The Top Reasons For a Weak Dollar

We all know the reasons why the dollar has been weak:

• The persistently high U.S. budget deficit,
• Huge unfunded entitlement liabilities
• And ultra-low interest rates.

Yet Europe is hardly a model of financial strength, economic growth, or fiscal propriety. What too many analysts fail to appreciate is that, in many respects, matters are worse in the Eurozone and Great Britain than they are here.

I’ve already covered the extensive problems and lack of viable solutions in the Eurozone. But take a look at Britain.

Two weeks ago, the Bank of International Settlements reported that – following a 10-year binge under the last Labour government – debt in the U.K. grew faster than in any other country. It now amounts to $284,000 per household.

The near doubling of government, corporate and household debt in Britain over the last decade was the biggest increase of any Western economy. And the Bank of International Settlements reports that this debt is further set to “explode” in the years ahead.

This is no small problem. In 2010, Britain had government debt of nearly 90 percent of GDP, corporate debt of 126 percent and household debt of 106 percent. Of the G7 economies, only Britain and Canada are in the danger zone for all three types of debt.

Why Now is Time to Be Long the Dollar

So the question remains. Why the heck should the pound sterling be so strong against the dollar? I’m not arguing that the United States is doing everything right. Clearly, it isn’t.

But there are good reasons to believe that America is in better shape than our friends across the pond.

Where, for instance, is the grassroots movement in Europe – like our Tea Party – that’s crying out for fiscal responsibility and limited government? Our politicians are at least getting the message that a large bloc of voters won’t accept out-of-control spending from either party anymore.

This looks like the inflection point for a higher dollar. Take advantage of it with UUP. PowerShares DB US Dollar Index Bullish is designed to replicate the performance of being long the U.S. dollar against the euro, Japanese yen, British pound, Canadian dollar, Swedish krona and Swiss franc.

It’s almost a shame that the Swiss franc – a genuine reflection of fiscal responsibility – is included in the group. On the other hand, the Swiss are sick and tired of their surging currency and are intervening heavily in currency markets to stem its rise.

In short, this is a good time to be long the dollar. And UUP is a great way to play it.

Good investing,

Alexander Green