Share Buybacks: A Buy Signal You Can’t Ignore

There are a number of signals that bode well for price appreciation with individual stocks: growing market share, rising sales, strong earnings growth and improving margins…

But you shouldn’t overlook another excellent indicator: share buybacks.

According to Standard & Poor’s, U.S. public companies spent at least $437 billion last year buying their own shares back. That was 46% more than in 2010.

Is this a good thing? Absolutely…

Regardless of whether you’re an individual or a corporation, sitting on cash isn’t terribly rewarding these days with the average money market fund paying five one-hundredths of 1%. And if the outlook is uncertain, a business owner doesn’t want to commit to building new facilities or taking on employees that aren’t needed. Nor is it necessarily in the best interest of shareholders to distribute this cash in the form of taxable dividends.

So buying back shares often makes good sense. Why? Because when you divide net income into a smaller number of shares outstanding, you get greater growth in earnings per share. And, ultimately, that’s what drives share prices higher.

Of course, stock buybacks boost earnings per share only if they’re larger than stock issuance. Historically, that hasn’t always been the case. (Much executive compensation today comes in the form of stock options that have a dilutive effect on existing shareholders.)

But in recent quarters, the supply of shares outstanding has been shrinking. And, according to analyst Howard Silverblatt at Standard & Poor’s, during the current earnings season, 97 of the S&P 500 enjoyed a boost to earnings per share of at least 4% from repurchases alone.

More Buybacks Ahead

Expect to see more of these buyback announcements in the weeks ahead. Why? Because U.S. corporations are sitting on more than $2 trillion in cash. That’s enough to buy all of ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM), Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) and IBM (NYSE: IBM).

There are some caveats, however. Some companies announce their intention to buy back shares and then don’t follow through. If business conditions change, interest rates rise, or cash flow decreases, a repurchase program may never get completed.

The other thing to watch is the exercise of stock options, as mentioned above. If a company is only buying back enough shares to offset the dilution that occurs when executives exercise stock options, you won’t see the buyback boost earnings per share.

But, generally speaking, share repurchase programs are a decided positive. And right now, with money cheap and corporate earnings strong, buybacks are occurring at record levels. Attractive companies in the midst of major share buybacks right now include L-3 Communications (NYSE: LLL) and ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP).

Having Your Cake and Eating it, Too…

Of course, some analysts would rather see corporate executives buying shares with their own money rather than the company’s money. And I don’t disagree…

But sometimes you can have your cake and eat it too. In a recent study, stocks that were subject to repurchases but not insider buying beat other stocks by nearly nine percentage points over four years. But stocks that were the subject of both repurchases and insider buying beat others by a whopping 29 points over four years.

Which companies have enjoyed share buybacks and insider buying recently? Two of them are Boston Scientific (NYSE: BSX) and Bank of New York Mellon (NYSE: BK).

These are the kind of companies that should handily outperform the market in the months ahead.

Good Investing,

Alexander Green

The U.S. Aging Crisis: A Threat to Stock Market Prices?

The U.S. Aging Crisis: A Threat to Stock Market Prices?
by Alexander Green, Investment U Chief Investment Strategist
Friday, March 9, 2012: Issue #1726

Robert Arnott claims that the U.S. aging crisis is a threat to future stock market prices. But do the numbers add up?

There’s a new scaremonger in town. And his name is Robert D. Arnott, a portfolio manager, asset-manager executive and Chairman of Research Affiliates in Newport Beach, California.

Mr. Arnott has a simple thesis. Over the next 10 years, the ratio of retirees to active workers will balloon. Retirees, of course, must eventually sell their stocks to support themselves. But there will be fewer young investors around to buy them. Ergo, returns on stocks over the next 10 to 20 years will be anemic.

If this sounds simplistic, congratulations. You probably have a brain and at least a modicum of common sense. This type of “stock market analysis” is really no analysis at all. More to the point, it doesn’t work. Just ask failed economic futurist Harry Dent, whom I’ve written about before.

While it’s inevitable that there will be 10 new senior citizens for each new working-age citizen over the next decade, that in itself doesn’t portend paltry equity returns.

For starters, let’s look at what’s happening to the world population as a whole. There are currently seven billion human beings living on the planet. At the current growth rate, that total is likely to hit eight billion within a decade.

Now, if you believe that investors in China, India, Brazil and other countries will have no interest in buying companies like Procter & Gamble (NYSE: PG), ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM), or Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO) in the future, no matter how inexpensively they’re priced, I guess you might put some credence in Mr. Arnott’s thesis.

But that’s highly unlikely. Citizens of capitalist countries are getting wealthier and better educated all the time. And the world is becoming more integrated. Would you really have a problem buying shares of Toyota (NYSE: TM), British Petroleum (NYSE: BP) or Nestle (OTC: NSRGY.PK) if they were bargains?

Of course not, regardless of the demographic trends in Japan, Britain, or Switzerland.

Mr. Arnott doesn’t just miss the big picture about the future, however. He also misinterprets the past. In a recent Wall Street Journal interview, for example, he talks about the collapse of Japan’s stock market over the last 23 years and blames it on the country’s aging population.

I have a better explanation. When the Nikkei 225, Japan’s leading stock market benchmark, climbed to nearly 40,000 in 1989, it was a bubble of epic proportions. Many stocks traded at more than 100 times earnings. And real estate was even more absurd. Just the 1.32 square miles that encompassed the Imperial Palace in Tokyo were valued at more than all the real estate in California combined.

Now that’s nuts. Crazier still were the Japanese banks that loaned money against these wildly inflated property values. This led to a protracted banking crisis that Japan’s political class refused to clean up.

To imagine that the two deflationary decades that followed this mania were the result of an aging population is like blaming this year’s warm winter on your aching big toe. Yet Arnott insists we should hunker down since “[Japan’s] demography is 10 years ahead of ours.”

Want to know what will really determine stock prices in the future? Earnings. I challenge you to look back through history and find even one publicly traded company that increased its profits quarter after quarter, year after year, and the stock didn’t tag along.

Perhaps our aging retirees will buy less in the future and contribute less to U.S. corporate profits. But there are billions of consumers around the world hungering for homes, computers, cars, phones, health insurance, credit cards, pharmaceuticals and golf clubs. They’re likely to be an engine of world economic growth – and rising U.S. corporate profits – for decades to come.

Don’t let anyone scare you otherwise.

Good Investing,

Alexander Green

Let the Insiders Hand You an “Unfair Advantage”

by Insider Alert Research Team

 Everyone in the stock market is looking for the ‘magic signal.’ That single factor that indicates an unequivocal BUY with guaranteed profits ahead.

The honest truth is there is no magic signal. You won’t find one by drawing lines on a chart. You won’t find one with a mathematical formula. And you certainly won’t find one by using the ratings of the big brokerage houses.

The financial markets are probably the most-competitive field of endeavor on the planet. There is a lot of brainpower and financial muscle trying to “win.”

You need to look at the market differently to beat it.

One of the best predictors of wealth creation is ownership by the people in charge. Hardly anyone focuses on ownership.

It’s a simple thing, yet nearly all the financial world’s eyes focus on everything but this. By following the signals of the ‘people in the know,’ you dramatically increase your chances of making a profit.

That’s why we follow insider buying.

The Inside Track

The fact of the matter is there are always people who know more about a company than you can glean from months of reading financial statements and industry reports. People with more knowledge than the most highly paid and qualified professional analysts. Individuals who are privy to a treasure trove of information that is not even available to the public.

So, who are these guys?

As you may have already guessed, these “enlightened ones” are the corporate officers and board members that head up every single company. And if you like, you can make the exact same moves that they do.

Admittedly, there are all kinds of investment strategies. People put their faith and funds into strategies like “Dogs of the Dow,” seasonal investing, index investing, or simply, buy and hold.

But we have found that insider buying (when properly interpreted) is the most powerful predictor of investment success.

Research shows that sound companies with widespread insider buying tend to outperform the market by a substantial margin. In fact, a comprehensive study at the University of Michigan revealed that stocks with insider buying generally triple the performance of the market over the next six months.

Follow The Leader

Some of the most successful investors of our era attribute part of their success to following this signal.

Legendary fund manager Peter Lynch believes there is no better tipoff to the probable success of a stock. George Soros, one of the most successful hedge fund managers ever, has used the strategy to help earn returns of 36% annually… (at that rate, money doubles every two years).

Warren Buffett, too, is a big believer in what he calls “the biblical standard” (quoting Matthew 6:21: “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also”).

Buffett’s own Berkshire Hathaway is stacked with insiders who own significant amounts of stock. (At one point, several years ago, Buffett wrote in his annual shareholder letter that every director of Berkshire Hathaway was a member of a family owning at least $4 million in stock. None of them acquired shares with options or grants). By the way… Berkshire Hathaway shares have delivered a compound annual growth rate of 15% since 1990.

And our own Alexander Green, the Investment Director of The Oxford Club, has used this technique with great success in his Insider Alert.

You can do the same in the stock market by limiting yourself only to companies that exhibit one of the chief characteristics of wealth creation: significant ownership by the people in charge.

Following insider buying is one of the investment world’s crown jewels – certainly the purest and simplest way to make money in the stock market. When insiders are piling their money into their own companies it’s because they believe the company is poised for a huge gain in profits.

And usually… they’re dead on.

Is it a Good Time to Invest in Stocks?

Is it a Good Time to Invest in Stocks?
by Alexander Green, Investment U Chief Investment Strategist
Monday, February 20, 2012: Issue #1712

More than two thousand years ago, the Greek sage and philosopher Epictetus counseled, “It is impossible for anyone to begin to learn what he thinks he already knows.”

Nowhere is this truer than in the stock market. You need only ask the many thousands of investors who have sat out an historic rally – the market has doubled from its lows years ago – because they just knew stock prices were only going to go lower.

That mindset has proved to be an expensive one. Yet these individuals now face another test.

If they jump into stocks today, having already missed one enormous move, they risk being in for the next leg down. That would hurt. On the other hand, if they continue to sit on the sidelines – earning next to nothing in bonds or cash – the market may well power higher and leave them with an even more extreme choice in the weeks and months ahead.

What is the prudent investor to do?

They Rise and They Fall

The first is to understand the error of your ways. Every market timer believes that if he sits patiently on the sidelines, he will get a better opportunity to buy stocks at lower prices.

And they often do. Unfortunately, they generally get to feeling so good about missing the downdraft that they convince themselves that the market will keep falling.

And, again, if often does. Until, of course, it doesn’t.

As the market climbs, they begin to rationalize that this is just “a bear market rally” or “a dead-cat bounce.” Until it becomes obvious that the train left the station and they’re still standing on the platform.

Cash is Not King, but Stocks Might Be

Warren Buffett’s mentor Benjamin Graham once said that no investor should have more than 75% of his money in stocks or less than 25%.

That’s a good rule of thumb. Seventy-five percent keeps you from getting overly enthused when times are good. And twenty-five percent keeps you from throwing in the towel when times are bad.

But what do you do now if you’re one of those who has played it too cautious until now and are fed up with your negative real returns in Treasury bonds or cash?

First, stop justifying what you’ve done and get off the dime. Start committing money to high-quality stocks in a gradual way. After all, if you shift a big percentage of your portfolio into stocks right now, you could regret it. And if you remain in cash, you could regret that, too.

So hedge yourself. Start moving money into stocks at regular intervals, being sure to keep buying if the market dips so you get better entry prices.

An Easy Way to Start Investing

A conservative place to start would be the Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF (NYSE: VYM). True, it currently yields just 2.9%, but that’s still 50% more than 10-year Treasuries are paying and 50 times as much as the average money market fund.

Even if stocks go nowhere over the next 10 years – highly unlikely given the decade we just had – you’d still be better off in this fund than in a bond or money market fund.

There are a ton of reasons to put off making this move from the state of the economy to the size of the deficit. But that’s just the kind of thinking that got you stuck on the sidelines.

Look at the bright side. Inflation and interest rates are low. We’ve had five straight months of declines in the jobless rate. The ECB has extended three-year, low-cost loans to European banks. The Greek parliament has voted to actually cut spending. And we’re in a period of all-time record corporate profits.

So cast off. As the great nineteenth-century theologian William Shedd pointed out, “A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for.”

Good Investing,

Alexander Green

Picking High-Growth Companies: How to Find the Next Apple

Picking High-Growth Companies: How to Find the Next Apple
by Alexander Green, Investment U Chief Investment Strategist
Friday, February 17, 2012: Issue #1711

Apple’s share price exceeded $500 this week, giving it the largest market cap of any U.S. company.

Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) so successfully sells computers, phones and other electronic gadgets that recently announced fourth-quarter profits soared 118% on a 73% increase in revenue. This is unheard of for a $475-billion company.

To put this in perspective, earnings at the companies in the S&P 500 stock index are on track to post a 6.6% year-on-year rise for the fourth quarter. Yet once Apple’s earnings are factored out, the expected fourth-quarter gain shrivels to just 2.8%. This so skews results that many Wall Street analysts are now stripping Apple from the index before weighing valuations and making forecasts.

Of course, it’s just a matter of time before Apple’s torrid growth begins to wane. It’s not possible for $500-billion companies to keep growing at the rate of $5-billion companies… or even $50-billion companies.

So the key is to search for the next Apple. But how do you find it?

Fortunately, the factors that make a great-performing stock are well known and have been intensively studied by academics and researchers. We know the key characteristics that top-performing stocks generally possess before making their parabolic moves up.

Here are just a few:

1. Double-digit sales growth. You can only grow the bottom line for so long by cutting costs. Every business needs to have healthy top-line growth before it can generate robust and sustainable long-term earnings growth. Note that sales at Apple jumped 73% last quarter.
2. At least 25% quarterly earnings growth. In an economy as weak as this one, most companies can’t meet these first two hurdles. But, again, Apple is seeing earnings growth at more than four times this rate.
3. A return on equity of 17% or more. Return on equity – an excellent measure of management’s efficiency with capital – is calculated by dividing earnings per share by book value per share. (This is one of Warren Buffett’s key metrics, too.) Note that Apple’s return on equity is a whopping 46%.
4. New products and services. Apple is the king of innovation, regularly bringing out not just new versions of products but entirely new products: iPods, iTunes, iPhones and iPads.
5. High-quality management. Never forget that every company is essentially a team of people. And just as every great sports franchise needs a highly qualified coach, so does each company require a visionary leader. Apple’s co-founder and former CEO Steve Jobs was one of the greats. Now that he’s gone, it will be interesting to see how the new management performs.
6. Institutional support. The vast majority of shares traded on the major exchanges are mutual funds, hedge funds, pension plans and endowments. You want to own the same stocks the institutions are buying. And, indeed, institutions own more than 70% of Apple’s outstanding shares.

These are some of the key criteria that companies need to meet to generate superior long-term returns for shareholders.

We may not see another company in our lifetimes that transforms the business landscape the way Apple has. But there are plenty of great innovators out there, including Amazon (Nasdaq: AMZN), Google (Nasdaq: GOOG), Genentech, eBay (Nasdaq: EBAY), Costco (Nasdaq: COST) and Intuitive Surgical (Nasdaq: ISRG).

These companies – and others like them – are likely to be among the best-performing stocks in the years ahead.

Good Investing,

Alexander Green

World’s Most Contrarian Investment

World’s Most Contrarian Investment
by Alexander Green, Investment U Chief Investment Strategist
Monday, February 13, 2012: Issue #1707

How do you identify great contrarian investment opportunities?

Two ways. First, rather than limiting yourself to your national borders, you seek out opportunities worldwide. Next, you insist on two essential factors: abject pessimism and extreme valuations. That’s exactly what we have in European stocks today.

Ask your friends and neighbors which stocks in Europe they’re buying right now and they’ll ask you to sit down so they can feel your forehead. After all, no one in his right mind would buy stocks in a region where socialist policies reign, economic growth is almost nonexistent and the currency – the euro – is coming apart at the seams, right?

Wrong. The fact that almost no one is enthusiastic about Europe right now – indeed, most see it as a ticking time bomb – tells you that sentiment is entirely negative.

How about valuations? Those are compelling, too. The benchmark MSCI Europe Index, for example, currently sells for just 9.8 times estimated 2012 earnings, versus an average of 17 times earnings over the past 25 years. Plus, the drop in prices has boosted the dividends on many of the well-known global companies based in Europe.

Lower Values, Higher Dividends…

In sum, you have low valuations, high dividends and extremely negative sentiment. Yet the vast majority of investors reading these words won’t plunk a dime in these markets. (And, if history is any guide, a year or two from now they’ll scratch their heads and say they just can’t fathom how European stocks could have rallied so strongly.)

Not that buying contrarian investments in this troubled region doesn’t present some risks. After all, the European Central Bank (ECB) is propping up troubled banks. Many Eurozone countries are teetering on the brink of recession. And there’s a decided lack of bold political leadership in the region.

But the good news is that all these factors are already well known and fully priced into European stocks. (That’s why they’re so darn cheap.) Meanwhile, the U.S. economy has stabilized – reducing a big risk to the global economy – and the ECB has at least addressed liquidity problems at the banks.

Plus, a weaker euro is actually boosting the earnings prospects for the many companies that export to other parts of the world where economic growth (and currencies) are stronger.

Prime examples are:

• Siemens AG (NYSE: SI),
• Nestle (Pink: NSRGY),
• Novartis (NYSE: NVS), and
• BMW (OTC: BAMXY.PK).

So how do you play this contrarian investment opportunity? One of the best ways is with a low-cost, Europe-focused ETF like the Vanguard MSCI Europe Fund (NYSE: VGK). It’s easily the least expensive ETF in the sector with annual expenses of just .14%.

Companies in the U.K. account for around 34% of VGK’s assets, while France, Germany and Switzerland make up approximately 40%. The fund holds more than 450 stocks, but a quarter of its $2.4-billion portfolio is in its top 10 holdings, which include Vodafone, Royal Dutch Shell and HSBC Holdings. You’ll earn a 4.4% dividend here.

If you want to benefit even more from a potential slingshot recovery in these markets, try the WisdomTree Europe SmallCap Dividend Fund (NYSE: DFE). It keeps a third of its assets in smaller British companies and the rest in small-cap stocks in the Eurozone.

Remember, when an equity market rallies, the small-cap issues generally outperform larger stocks. And your contrarian investment will get a whopping 5.8% dividend here.

So there you have it, two great ways to play one of the most compelling opportunities in the world right now. Of course, most investors simply cannot bring themselves to invest against the herd. That’s how they got stuck in internet stocks a decade ago and residential real estate five years ago.

It’s also why this is perhaps one of the best contrarian investment opportunities today.

Good Investing,

Alexander Green

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.

Why Most of the Investment Advice You’ve Heard is Wrong

Why Most of the Investment Advice You’ve Heard is Wrong

by Alexander Green, Investment U Chief Investment Strategist
Friday, January 20, 2012: Issue #1691

A conversation with a friend last week sounded numbingly familiar.

“I just can’t seem to win for losing in the stock market,” he confessed. “Five years ago, my broker had me fully invested in stocks and I took a drubbing. Then when things were bottoming out a couple years later, he talked me into making my portfolio more conservative. As a result, I didn’t get much of a pop on the rebound. Now he’s trying to get me to reshuffle again. But I’m too scared to do anything.”

Since he was a friend, I felt obliged to tell him the truth: He’s getting lousy investment advice. Not because his broker failed to outguess the market… but because he’s guessing at all. As if that wasn’t bad enough, there’s a good chance that the advice he’s getting is tainted by self-interest.

Here’s what I mean…

It still astonishes me that the vast majority of investors – even ones who have been active for decades – still don’t understand that stock market success has nothing to do with figuring out the economy.

Look back at history. There’s no correlation between economic growth and stock market performance from year to year. Equities routinely plunge during the good times and rally during the bad. If you know this – and truly understand it – why would you invest your money based on someone’s economic forecast?

The same is true of market timing. It’s easy to look in the rearview mirror and see when you should have been in the market and when you should have been out. But when you look ahead, it is always a blank slate. No guru or trading system can change that.

Even if you could somehow divine what the stock market was going to do next – which you can’t – you still wouldn’t know which stocks would outperform and which ones would lag.

The only way to determine that is to look at business fundamentals. Companies that are doing all the right things – increasing sales, compounding earnings at high rates, growing market share, improving operating margins, paying down debt, buying back shares – will post superb returns, regardless of what the economy or stock market are doing. And those that are doing the opposite – experiencing flat or negative sales, lackluster earnings growth, small margins, high interest costs and diluting existing shareholders with new stock issues – will be laggards.

In short, stock market success is about analyzing businesses not investing in some self-styled expert’s macroeconomic forecast. Yet that’s exactly what the mass media and much of the investment advisory industry encourages people to do every day.

The media does it to attract viewers – and thus advertisers. The advisory industry does it sometimes out of ignorance but often just to justify its fees. This is especially true when you have a transaction-based relationship with an advisor where the more you trade the better he or she is compensated. Trust me. That doesn’t generate satisfactory long-term returns.

Every time you hear a pundit talk about “the new normal,” the rally just ahead or the prolonged economic slump we’re likely to endure, understand that you’re listening to opinions that are no more helpful than a weather forecast for three weeks from Sunday.

Both pieces of advice are worthless. But one is a lot more expensive – and harmful – than the other.

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

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