Monday, January 26, 2015


Fastest Track to a Seven-Figure Portfolio

Do what master investors Buffett, Lynch and others did – invest in the top-performing category of stocks since 1927. One buck invested in these stocks grew to $45,144 over that span. The same dollar invested in the next best stock category topped out at $6,329, or 86% less. It's not that complicated. I turned $50,000 into $5.3 million in 10 years using this strategy. You can get started today –

go here.

The Warren Buffett Strategy Every Investor Ought to Know

Would it surprise you to learn that you have a powerful investing advantage over the legendary "Oracle of Omaha"?

Yes, we mean the Warren Buffett, whose Berkshire Hathaway portfolio totals $484 billion---and whose own net worth clocks in at a cool $58 billion.

We're talking about a strategy so powerful it could earn you 50% a year in the stock market.

Let us explain.

Fifty years ago, Warren Buffett started building Berkshire into the mammoth money-spinning machine it is today. He did it by tapping into high-growth small-cap companies.

But here's the problem: this strategy is useless to him now.

It's not that he can't find great small caps---far from it---but these stocks simply can't absorb the massive amount of capital Berkshire needs to invest to move the needle on its performance.

"The highest rates of return I've ever achieved were in the 1950s," the Oracle of Omaha said in 1999. "I killed the Dow. You ought to see the numbers. But I was investing peanuts then.

"It's a huge structural advantage not to have a lot of money.I think I could make you 50% a year on $1 million.No, I know I could. I guarantee that. But you can't compound $100 million or $1 billion at anything remotelylike that rate."

Now Buffett has to satisfy himself with slower-growing large cap stocks. But you don't.

And because we're conservative investors, we'll shoot for half of the 50% Buffett says we could make. At 25% a year, you triple your money in five years---and that's plenty good enough for us.

Here's how.

The Magic Formula for Big Gains in Small Caps

When looking for stocks that can score huge gains, it helps to look at what worked in the past.

So just for kicks, Jim Fink, chief strategist at our Roadrunner Stocks advisory, ran a screen to find the 10 biggest gainers over the past 10 years.

Nine out of 10 have one thing in common:They started their epic runs as tiny companies.

Intuitively, this makes sense. It's much easier to grow 100% per year when starting from a small base than it is when starting from a big one.

But here's what you might not guess: Not only are 90% of the top-performing stocks of the past decade small caps, but most were value stocks, too. In other words, they were cheap, sporting bargain price-to-earnings and price-to-book ratios.

Consider Monster Beverage (NasdaqGS: MNST), one of the best-performing stocks of the past 10 years, with a mind-boggling 10,500% total return. Back in 2002, it not only had a tiny market cap but a p/e ratio of only 10.

Cal-Maine Foods (NasdaqGS: CALM), another big winner, had a p/e of just 9.

A recent study by Ibbotson Associates tells the tale. Ibbotson's researchers divided the entire stock market into four groups: small-cap and large-cap value, and small-cap and large-cap growth. They then examined the 83-year period between 1927 and 2010.

The results were staggering: $1 invested in small-cap value stocks grew to $49,822. The same $1 in the worst-performing group, large-cap growth stocks, was worth only $1,008, or 98% less.

As you can see from the chart below, small-cap value stocks were by far the top-performing category, at 14.1% a year over eight decades.

Group

Compound Annual Return (1927-2010)

$1 Invested in 1927 Worth in 2010

Small-Cap Value

14.1%

$49,822

Large-Cap Value

11.1%

$5,605

Small-Cap Growth

9.2%

$1,363

Large-Cap Growth

8.8%

$1,008


Note also that small-cap growth stocks did not outperform large-cap value stocks, so going small isn't enough on its own. A combination of small size and value is the magic formula.

This same strategy still works today because it's based on timeless qualities. Agile small-cap value stocks still create new millionaires faster than any other investment on the planet.

And the best news is, plenty of these stocks are out there today.

If you don't believe us, just look at the numbers. According to Bloomberg, 177 stocks were up 100% or more just this past year. And that's in the U.S. alone. Include foreign markets and you're looking at 1,043 stocks up 100%.

So it can and does happen---a lot.

"Like Buying McDonald's at the Start of the Fast-Food Era"

Fink has discovered dozens of companies in position to deliver 10-year returns anywhere from 1,000%, 2,000%---and a few even higher.

He calls these investments "roadrunner stocks." They're precisely the kind of swift-moving picks master investors like Peter Lynch, Buffett and others bought to kickstart their wealth at the beginning of their careers.

Will they all be big winners? Of course not.

But after hours of research, Fink has whittled his list down to four Buffett-quality stocks with the very best odds of success.

We're talking about breakthrough companies that will change the lives of millions. These are the ground-floor opportunities every investor dreams of---like buying McDonald's at the start of the fast-food era, or Google as the Internet changed the world.

Fink has put everything you need to know---names, ticker symbols and a plain-English investment rationale for each of these four picks---in a new special report. It's called "Small-Cap Wealth Builders: Roadrunner Stocks Warren Buffett Would Invest in if He Could."

Here's the best part: for a limited time, you can get your own copy absolutely free. All we ask is that you take a no-risk trial of Roadrunner Stocks, the advisory that can help you make 25% a year through the profit-making power of undervalued small caps.

All four of these companies are like a shot of B12 for your portfolio. We urge you to check them out now, while they're still bargains.

Click here to discover these 4 must-own small caps now!

Editor's Note: Jim Fink's track record speaks for itself: by investing in the same kinds of stocks he'll show you in this free special report, he turned $50,000 into $5.3 million in 10 years and "retired" at the ripe old age of 37.

Remember that table above showing that small caps returned 14.1% a year over eight decades? If they do that on average, Fink should easily be able to make at least 25% a year just by kicking out the obvious dogs. Don't forget, some of the stocks you'll read about in Roadrunner Stocks should jump 100%, 200%---even 10-to-1 in a single year!

This kind of life-changing advice doesn't come along every day. Don't miss it. Get all the details here.


Buffett Rule Number One: Size Matters – But Not How You Think

If you're hunting for your first million, think small. You'll never make your big killing by investing in Walmart or Apple today. Can't happen. Nothing against those big companies, but their massive price jumps are behind them. Warren Buffett learned this lesson decades ago. That's why he invested early in stocks that are small and cheap. Follow this path and you'll give yourself a bundle of investing advantages. Want proof?

Click here.

Will Australia's Central Bank Be Next?

Ari Charney

With the Bank of Canada's surprise rate cut on Wednesday, the odds have further increased that the Reserve Bank of Australia will soon follow suit.

While most economists had expected the Bank of Canada (BoC) to maintain a dovish stance on monetary policy through words rather than actions, the central bank shocked the financial world this week by lowering its benchmark overnight rate by a quarter point, to 0.75%.

Prior to that, the BoC's short-term rate had been stuck at 1% since late 2010, the longest such pause in the central bank's history. The central bank kept rates low to help the export sector take over leadership of the country's economy from debt-burdened consumers.

And in recent months, there's been increasing evidence that this long-awaited transition is finally underway. But while the BoC has been hoping that the country's beleaguered manufacturing sector would pick up steam on the export front, it's important to remember that energy products are Canada's top export category, accounting for about a quarter of the country's exports by value.

So crude oil's collapse finally forced the BoC to take action. The central bank believes a rate cut is a necessary insurance policy against a sharp drop in energy sector investment.

Although Canada's resource space accounted for 8.1% of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2013, according to Statistics Canada, the sector is estimated to have been responsible for as much as 35% of private non-residential investment. Many of the country's energy exploration and production companies have already announced dramatic cuts to 2015 capital budgets.

Similarly, Australia is enduring a decline in mining investment now that the resource boom is over. And iron ore, which accounted for about 22.6% of Australia's exports by value in 2013 and is by far the country's top export, has suffered a decline equivalent in magnitude to that of oil.

Still, it's worth noting that Australia's export sector contributes markedly less to the country's GDP than Canada's exports do to its own GDP. According to the World Bank, exports account for about 30% of Canada's GDP, while Australia derives just 20% of GDP from its export sector.

Of course, GDP can't fully account for the way money earned in one area flows through the rest of the economy, so while these figures provide some context, they paint only a partial picture, at best.

Like the BoC, the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) has kept short-term rates low, in this case at an all-time low of 2.5%, to help the country's economy find growth from its non-mining sectors.

Just as in Canada, Australia's housing market was the first beneficiary of historically low rates, and both countries have their own housing bubbles with which to contend. Like Canada, Australia's economy began to show progress recently in its rotation away from the resource sector, with investment by non-resource firms growing by 5.5% in the third quarter versus a 3.5% drop in the mining sector, according to government data.

Both central banks have also hoped low rates and a dovish stance would undercut their exchange rates, which have been rapidly falling over the past year-and-a-half following a period of unusual relative strength. A lower exchange rate can help boost a country's exports by making prices more competitive when translated into foreign currencies.

A significant portion of the decline in each country's exchange rate has been driven by the U.S. Federal Reserve's hawkish stance on monetary policy. With the BoC's monetary policy now clearly headed in the opposite direction of the Fed, traders are increasingly betting on further easing from the RBA.

First, the Australian dollar quickly dived following news of the BoC's rate cut, and then dropped even further when the European Central Bank (ECB) made its own big move on Thursday, with the announcement of an EUR1.1 trillion bond-buying program.

In March, the ECB plans to start buying EUR60 billion of bonds each month, with hopes of bringing down long-term interest rates to stave off deflationary pressures and stimulate the Continent's moribund economy.

The aussie has fallen by 2.5 cents since Tuesday, which is a sizable move in the world of currencies. It currently trades near USD0.792, its lowest level since the Global Financial Crisis.

And while a clear majority of traders still expect the RBA to leave rates unchanged at its February meeting, futures data aggregated by Bloomberg suggest a still-substantial 32.3% probability of a cut. Meanwhile, the probability of a rate cut of at least a quarter point occurring at the March meeting has jumped to 65.4% from 40.6% a week ago.

As Westpac chief economist Bill Evans told The Sydney Morning Herald, "What we're seeing is a lot of central banks are making surprise decisions at the moment--Canada, India, Denmark. So in this environment of central banks pushing rates down and adopting easing strategies, it becomes a lot more respectable to do that."

This article originally appeared in the Down Under Digest column. Never miss an issue. Sign up to receive Down Under Digest by email.


Buffett Rule Number Two: Look for Skin and Win

Always invest in companies where management has skin in the game, says the world's greatest investor. Buffett firmly believes the "hunger for success" of owner-operators can rack up 50% a year in fundamentally sound smaller companies. Earn just half that much and you'll triple your money in five years. Care to join us? To find 4 "hungry" stocks…

click here.

Oil Demand Is Not Declining

Robert Rapier

The joint monthly web chat for subscribers of The Energy Strategist (TES) and MLP Profits (MLPP) took place last week. The chat is conducted by Igor Greenwald, who is managing editor for TES and chief investment strategist for MLPP, and myself. Given the rapidly changing dynamics in the energy market, it wasn't surprising that we received nearly 90 questions/comments during the course of the chat. While we addressed about two-thirds of them during the chat, there were a number of questions remaining at the end. Many people asked about the bottom for oil prices, so I want to address that as the topic of today's column. In this week's MLP Investing Insider, I address some of the remaining MLP questions from the chat.

There were at least 10 questions related to the drop in the price of oil, but most were some variation of the following. I did answer this question during the chat, but I would like to elaborate today because there is a very common misconception about the supply/demand picture for oil.

Q: Many have suggested that the drop in oil prices in due to a drop in demand more than an oversupply. With oil at less than half of its peak, has demand dropped by half? Seems ridiculous. What is the actual amount of oversupply, and the actual amount of demand destruction?

I have been asked numerous times about the role of a "drop in demand" in the oil price decline. Many stories in the media have referenced a drop in demand.

There are two primary reasons given for this so-called demand drop. One is that years of high oil prices have resulted in reductions in consumption through conservation and improvements in vehicle fleet efficiency. The second reason is that, due to the strengthening dollar, oil has become more expensive for many countries since oil is generally priced in dollars.

There are elements of truth behind both reasons. There has indeed been reduced oil consumption in recent years in most developed regions of the world. It is also true that the dollar has strengthened against many currencies. But despite the rationale that explains this drop in oil consumption, ultimately the data must support the narrative.

We have to keep in mind that the developed regions of the world aren't the entire world. Despite this oft-repeated mantra about falling oil demand, there is no evidence that this is actually true. Last October, the International Energy Agency (IEA) reduced its forecast for 2014 global oil demand growth by 200,000 barrels per day (bpd). The revised forecast was that global oil demand would only increase by 700,000 bpd from 2013.

Last week, as reported by CNBC, the IEA forecast that "global growth in the demand for oil could modestly accelerate in 2015 to 910,000 barrels a day." However, the article also noted that the World Bank had reduced its forecast for growth in the global economy for this year to 3%, down from the prior forecast of 3.4%.

What has happened is that these reductions in the forecast for oil demand growth or economic growth get mistranslated into forecasts of declining demand. I think we can all agree that if I gained five pounds a year in each of the past five years, but this year I only project that I will gain three pounds, I did not lose weight.

Consider that in the five-year period of 2008-2013, the price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude averaged $88/bbl. The price of Brent crude was even higher at $95/bbl over this period. These prices were much higher than the average oil price over the previous five-year period, therefore we might expect that this had a negative impact on oil demand. This was in fact the case in the U.S. and E.U., but global demand increased, driven by increases in every developing region of the world:

150123TEL1
Despite much higher oil prices, global demand for oil increased by more than 5 million bpd in the past five years. In fact, global oil consumption has increased in 18 of the past 20 years.

Now, look at where most of the world's oil production growth took place during that time period:

150123TEL2
This is why I maintain that oil below $50/bbl is simply not sustainable for very long. If global demand were actually declining, it would be a different story. But with demand continuing to grow, and with the majority of the oil production added in the past five years coming from the shale oil fields in the U.S., there is simply not enough $50/bbl crude to meet demand.

Oil will not -- as I have seen some predict -- sink to $40/bbl and stay there. There may be a new norm for oil relative to what we have seen in the past five years, but it will be closer to $70/bbl than to $40/bbl.

(Follow Robert Rapier on Twitter, LinkedIn, or Facebook.)

This article originally appeared in the The Energy Letter column. Never miss an issue. Sign up to receive The Energy Letter by email.


Buffett Didn't Start Out Rich

But he did begin investing with a powerful strategy that kick-starts wealth like none other. Funny thing is, Buffett can't use the strategy anymore – he's too darn rich. Luckily (unless you're a billionaire already), it's open to you. And it still works like magic. In fact, there's no swifter, surer way to becoming a millionaire in all of investing. Want to learn how?

The full story.

You are receiving this email at benjamart.ss.stock@blogger.com as part of your subscription to Investing Daily's Stocks To Watch,
published by Investing Daily. To ensure delivery directly to your inbox, please add
postoffice@investingdaily.com to your address book today.

Email Preferences | About Us | Premium Services | Contact Us | Privacy Policy

Copyright 2014 Investing Daily. All rights reserved.
Investing Daily, a division of Capitol Information Group, Inc.

7600A Leesburg Pike
West Building, Suite 300
Falls Church, VA 22043-2004
U.S.A.

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to RSS Feed Follow me on Twitter!