  |
Short answer: yes. Just as success in baseball is about much more than bashing home runs, success in tech investing is about more than buying big-name stocks. Full details.
| | | 11/10/2014 What do successful baseball teams and smart tech investors have in common?
Both win by zeroing in on things others have missed---not simply chasing the next superstar.
Consider the incredible story of the Oakland Athletics.
Back in 2002, A's general manager Billy Beane was just another frustrated small-market baseball executive trying to compete with the filthy-rich, free-spending Yankees.
That year, he decided to go all in on a controversial quantitative analysis system developed by baseball writer and statistician Bill James.
Rather than getting hung up on a player's potential, James said teams should focus on performance. In particular, he advocated looking for players who excel in measurable categories scouts often overlook, like walks, on-base percentage and the ability to hit in clutch situations.
Beane decided he needed a numbers wizard on his team, so he hired stats guru Paul DePodesta.
This baseball "odd couple" then set out to build a quick, opportunistic team adept at, among other things, amassing base runners via high-percentage walks, single and doubles.
Maybe, they thought---just maybe---a team with the right metrics could score more runs and win more games.
Investment Lessons From the Diamond
The 2002 season started with the low-budget A's fielding a squad of journeyman players. But they stunned the baseball world, winning 103 games and setting an American League record by winning 20 in a row.
Over the next 11 years, the no-name A's became such consistent winners (8 first- or second-place finishes, plus a solid .535 winning percentage) they were immortalized in the Brad Pitt movie Moneyball.
Critics point out that the team has yet to win a World Series playing Moneyball, but A's fans can count on their team being in the playoff hunt---and having a chance to win a championship---just about every year.
But here's the key takeaway for investors: The way the A's judge talent has intriguing implications for picking the next winning tech stocks.
We know that sounds crazy, but we're already using our own Moneyball-inspired strategy to uncover big tech winners for investors---including five with the potential to deliver life-changing gains if you act now.
We'll tell you all about them in a moment. But first, it's time to introduce you to...
The Stat Whiz of Tech Stocks
At its core, Moneyball relies on precisely the same things Leo Boeckl, chief strategist at our Smart Tech Investor advisory, looks for when evaluating tech stocks for investors.
Here's what we mean: - The heart of Moneyball metrics is discovering undervalued players with overlooked talents that often prove more vital to winning games than spectacular home runs and gaudy batting averages.
- The heart of our Smart Tech Investor strategy is identifying underestimated tech firms with crucial but overlooked aspects they need to beat out the competition (rather than swinging for the fences to invent the next big thing).
At Smart Tech Investor, Leo assigns scores to tech stocks based on a series of measurements including dividend yield, operating cash flow growth and the ability to snap up companies whose breakthroughs nicely complement their own.
The results speak for themselves: - Months ago, Leo predicted Amazon's sharp drop and the crushing of BlackBerry. Both came to pass.
- He also alerted his subscribers that Apple (NasdaqGS: AAPL) would take off yet again (it's up 103% year-to-date), and he named Western Digital (NasdaqGS: WDC) his highest-rated tech stock. It promptly rose 50% in less than 6 months.
- But here's the real clincher---through the first six months of 2014, Leo's portfolio beat the high-flying Nasdaq by 58%! And he's on track to keep that streak going.
The bottom line: Leo's "uncommon metrics" are the key to pinpointing tech stocks destined to become hugely profitable---and avoiding those about to be swept away by the competition.
A Series of Profitable Singles and Doubles
The simple fact is, nothing quite beats technology stocks for huge, quick gains: - A 1997 investment in Cisco reaped a 1,247% profit just three years later;
- A 2004 bet on Google rose 628% by 2007;
- And a 2005 investment in Apple netted a spectacular 10,205% gain just eight years down the pike.
Those are the kinds of gains that change your life.
But it bears repeating: Success in the cutthroat tech world is not just about being first with a spectacular "grand slam" innovation.
If you look closely at Apple today---and throw in Verizon (NYSE: VZ) and Qualcomm (NasdaqGS: QCOM), too---you'll see they don't try to innovate (hit home runs) all the time and create breakthrough technology in-house.
Instead, these supremely successful companies realize they can augment their products more effectively by acquiring exactly what they need from a supplier.
For example, Apple created most of the technology for iPhones and iPods---but also married that technology with a system for applications and music, which Apple never invested any time or money to create.
And Apple is certainly a solid buy right now---even though it's not likely to produce another round of 10,000%-plus gains.
But new technologies are constantly being created and evolving.
So at Smart Tech Investor, we look for the stocks that won't win the World Series every year---but they do provide a better winning percentage over the long term, thus creating opportunities to win the World Series in any given year.
5 Clutch Performers for Your Portfolio
Here's the best news of all. We've packed five of Leo's favorite tech picks right now into a brand new free report, "Moneyball Investing for Technology Stocks."
These five "unsung heroes" are like a shot of B-12 for your portfolio. They've developed game-changing technology in five of the sector's most explosive markets: big data, cloud computing, cyber-security, mobile gaming and health care data management.
Best of all, this amazing new report is yours free when you take Smart Tech Investor for a no-risk 90-day test spin. So you can put all five to your own personal test, the tougher the better.
Plus, you'll enjoy full access to our complete service---including the most detailed analysis available on tech stocks anywhere---for a full three months with no obligation whatsoever.
Don't be left behind as the latest tech breakthroughs create the next round of millionaires.
Go here to check out this incredible new report now.
You'll be so glad you did.
Editor's note: If you're thinking about adding tech stocks to your portfolio and you're concerned (as you should be) about being left out of the new, sweeping technological breakthroughs, this offer is for you. The five stocks Leo outlines in this groundbreaking report should be at the top of your list.
We can't wait to tell you all about them. And remember, your risk in checking out this offer is exactly zero. You have nothing to lose and much to gain.
Click here to uncover these five extraordinary picks now. | | |
Twelve years ago, Oakland A's general manager Billy Beane was just another small-market baseball exec trying to compete with the deep-pocket New York Yankees.
Beane ingeniously adapted a quantitative analysis system uncovering talented but overlooked players on the cheap. Upshot: The A's are now one of the winningest teams in baseball year after year. The strategy became known as Moneyball. But here's the really amazing thing…
A metrics system very similar to Moneyball works wonders for discovering overlooked technology stocks with terrific profit upside. Potential gains can reach 628%, 1,247%, even 10,205%. Like Moneyball, it's all about picking winners. The amazing story.
| | | 11/07/2014 By Ari Charney 
With Republicans set to take control of the Senate in the wake of Tuesday's midterm elections, TransCanada Corp's (TSX: TRP, NYSE: TRP) long-stalled Keystone XL pipeline project could finally be near approval.
Prior to the midterms, Senate Republicans had previously tallied as many as 57 votes in favor of the pipeline, which given their minority status in the chamber meant that Keystone already boasts considerable bipartisan support.
But even that wasn't enough to meet the filibuster-proof threshold of 60 votes.
Although the House Republican majority has voted repeatedly to approve the pipeline in recent years, the Senate Democratic majority hasn't held a binding vote on it since 2012.
But with an expanded Republican majority in the House and as many as 54 Republican Senators in the next Congress (we're still waiting for a final vote tally in Alaska, as well as a runoff election in Louisiana, though both outcomes appear favorable to the GOP), plus additional Democratic support, legislation approving the pipeline should now easily sail through both chambers early next year.
Indeed, Republicans have said approving Keystone XL is a top priority for the next Congress.
Nevertheless, it could still face President Obama's veto. And even with bipartisan support, the new Republican majority in the Senate won't have the 67 votes to override it.
So the question now is how Keystone will play into the president's political calculus. As a lame duck with his final midterm now past, his political considerations will likely involve weighing the importance of key Democratic constituencies such as environmentalists and labor unions against the longer-term interests of a Democratic Party that once rode his coattails, but whose grasp on power has since substantially eroded.
Keystone XL, which has been sidelined by domestic U.S. politics since 2008, has long been controversial among environmentalists, who worry that the proposed 1,179-mile pipeline running from Alberta to Nebraska could pose a significant risk of spills, while also increasing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).
The president has previously stated that he was unlikely to authorize a permit for the pipeline if it were to greatly increase emissions. The pipeline could carry as much as 830,000 barrels per day of mostly heavy, sour crude from Canada's oil sands to U.S. refineries.
In addition to hoping to stymie emissions-intensive production from Canada's oil sands by denying crude an easy path to market, environmentalists are also concerned about the emissions resulting from the difficult refining process, as well as crude's eventual use as a fuel source.
However, when there's demand for a commodity, it will find its way to market, as evidenced by producers resorting to shipping crude by rail, truck and even barge.
And if Canadian crude is going to get to market anyway, then from an environmental standpoint it all boils down to which mode of transportation is cleanest in terms of emissions. In fact, a U.S. State Department environmental assessment concluded that the Keystone XL pipeline was the most environmentally friendly means of transportation when compared to the aforementioned alternatives now in use.
But even if environmentalists are only a small constituency when it comes to the polls, they are becoming an increasingly important constituency when it comes to political fundraising.
Indeed, anti-Keystone billionaire Tom Steyer deployed $57 million via his NextGen Climate Action super PAC (political action committee) to help protect Democratic seats in the recent election. Altogether, environmentalist groups may have spent as much as $85 million on the midterms.
Then there are the labor unions, another core Democratic constituency, which are largely in favor of Keystone because they hope it will create new jobs. Although union membership has long been in decline, unions still represent about 11% of the U.S. workforce, so they are a significant source of votes, manpower for electioneering, and fundraising.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, labor unions' political spending accounted for 17%, or $89.5 million, of all outside spending by political interest groups during the recent election cycle.
If Obama ultimately decides it's in his best interest to simply move forward with approving the pipeline, then he could pull a political jujitsu move on Republicans by proceeding with approving its permit before Congress can act.
Warren Mabee, director of the Institute for Energy and Environment Policy at Queen's University, told the Toronto Star that while he doesn't discount the possibility that Obama will veto any Keystone bill that crosses his desk, there's a chance that he may bring the project forward for approval before legislation is introduced.
"He could just approve it now and take the wind out of the Republicans' sails," Mabee said. "If he waits for them to pass, then he suddenly looks weaker."
During a visit to Canada in late October, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told a joint news conference held with Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird that he would certainly like to make a final decision on Keystone "sooner rather than later," but that he couldn't give a precise date.
Perhaps the Obama administration was simply waiting for the outcome of the midterms to see whether it would truly be cornered on Keystone.
Kerry's comment suggests the administration may have been weighing the most opportune time to act.
If it acted before the elections, then it would have certainly alienated environmentalists. But now that the administration has been cornered, the most politically expedient thing for Obama to do may be to approve Keystone XL rather than veto it, as many expect.
That way, he'll avoid the political showdown that could occur if Republicans subsequently tack on the approval to a must-pass spending bill.
And such a move could also help more moderate Democrats win back seats from Republicans in the next election by appealing to an electorate that's clearly more concerned about the economy than environmental issues. This article originally appeared in the Maple Leaf Memo column. Never miss an issue. Sign up to receive Maple Leaf Memo by email. | | |
It's massive, recession-proof, and unstoppable. I know you've heard those clichés before. But the Next Wave of technology is the real deal. It's going to change all our lives and make timely investors rich. See for yourself.
| | | 11/07/2014 By Ari Charney
Australia's economy appears to have given us a reprieve after last month's demoralizing employment report. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), the country's economy added 24,100 jobs in October, moderately surpassing the consensus forecast of 20,000 jobs. The unemployment rate held steady at 6.2%, an 11-year high, though in line with expectations, while the labor force participation rate improved by a tenth of a percentage point, to 64.6%, though it remains near an eight-year low. Full-time employment rose by 33,400, while part-time employment fell by 9,400. Full-time jobs are considered to be of higher quality, since part-time jobs generally have lower pay, fewer benefits, and higher turnover. As such, it's welcome news whenever full-time employment is the driving factor behind the headline number. Unfortunately, even with these latest data, full-time job creation has averaged just 5,400 positions per month over the trailing year, though it has outpaced part-time job creation, which averaged just 3,300 jobs per month over that same period. The aggregate monthly hours worked, which can be an important indicator of future labor demand, rose by 1.6% month over month. On a year-over-year basis, however, the number of hours worked is up by just 1.2%. In his latest statement on monetary policy, Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) Governor Glenn Stevens had a decidedly gloomy outlook on the country's jobs market. "Although some forward indicators of employment have been firming this year," he observed, "the labor market has a degree of spare capacity, and it will probably be some time yet before unemployment declines consistently." Unfortunately, we can't fully enjoy October's welcome respite from Australia's otherwise weak employment trend. That's because the Australian Bureau of Statistics' (ABS) revision to its seasonal-adjustment methodology has many wondering whether its data are still trustworthy. To recap, the government agency decided to revisit August's blockbuster jobs report, which initially showed that the country's economy added a whopping 121,000 jobs that month, the highest number on record, blowing past the consensus forecast of 15,000 jobs. But in reviewing those data, the ABS had second thoughts, and the agency's statisticians decided to throw out the usual seasonal adjustment for July, August and September, after determining that typical seasonal patterns had not been evident during that period. Instead, the initial revision to the data showed that the Australian economy added just over 32,000 jobs in August. That's still a strong result when compared to the country's typical pace of job creation, but it's a far, far cry from a gain of 121,000 jobs. But then that number was revised once more, and now shows a drop of 8,900 jobs for August. Even worse, September's labor force survey was a huge disappointment. The number of jobs was initially reported to have fallen by nearly 30,000 that month, though that was subsequently revised to a loss of 23,700 jobs. Over the trailing year, job creation has averaged an anemic 8,800 jobs per month, compared to 12,800 jobs per month over the trailing five-year period. In addition to keeping interest rates at historic lows, the RBA hopes that a lower exchange rate will help fix what ails the economy. Although the aussie hit a new low for this cycle of USD0.856 earlier this week, the central bank said, "The Australian dollar remains above most estimates of its fundamental value, particularly given the further declines in key commodity prices over the course of this year." The RBA believes that further depreciation would support demand for Australian producers, with each 10% decline adding a half point to a full point to the country's gross domestic product over the ensuing two-year period. This article originally appeared in the Down Under Digest column. Never miss an issue. Sign up to receive Down Under Digest by email. | | |
The Internet is going through another change that will rock your everyday life – again. It's a new wave in Internet capabilities led by cloud-computing technologies. Businesses are starting to use the cloud at breakneck speeds. Barron's estimates cloud computing will soar by 44% a year. McKinsey & Co estimates a $6.2 trillion impact by 2025. That's just one leg of the wave. There are three more that are detailed here. Plus, here are 4 ways to profit from the wave. Click here.
| | | | | |
0 comments:
Post a Comment