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 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 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