by Alexander Green, Investment U Chief Investment Strategist
Monday, January 16, 2012: Issue #1687

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good Investing,

Alexander Green

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

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

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

Virtually every hand in the room came down.

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

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

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

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

It’s not a pretty picture.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good Investing,

Alexander Green

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

by Alexander Green, Investment U Chief Investment Strategist

Monday, December 26, 2011: Issue #1672

[Editor’s Note: Alexander Green, author of the best-selling book Beyond Wealth, originally wrote this essay for his Oxford Club weekly newsletter Spiritual Wealth.

In the spirit of the holidays we decided to depart from our normal financial topics to bring you Alex’s inspiring anecdote of Charles Dickens, “The Man Who Invented Christmas.”

Last weekend, my family, some friends and I attended a performance of “A Christmas Carol” at the American Shakespeare Center in Staunton, Virginia.

It was superb. The kids particularly enjoyed it and were surprised to learn that the author – Charles Dickens – is the man most responsible for the modern celebration of the season. This is a story that deserves to be more widely known…

Dickens is one of the greatest writers in the English language. He published 20 novels in his lifetime. None has ever gone out of print.

Yet in 1843, Dickens’ popularity was at a low, his critical reputation in tatters, his bank account overdrawn. Facing bankruptcy, he considered giving up writing fiction altogether.

In a feverish six-week period before Christmas, however, he wrote a small book he hoped would keep his creditors at bay. His publishers turned it down. So using his meager savings, Dickens put it out himself. It was an exercise in vanity publishing – and the author told friends it might be the end of his career as a novelist.

Yet the publication of A Christmas Carol caused an immediate sensation, selling out the first printing – several thousand copies -in four days. A second printing sold out before the New Year, and then a third. Widespread theatrical adaptations spread the story to an exponentially larger audience still.

And it wasn’t just a commercial success. Even Dickens’ chief rival and foremost critic, William Makepeace Thackeray, bowed his head before the power of the book: “The last two people I heard speak of it were women; neither knew the other, or the author, and both said, by way of criticism, ‘God bless him!’ What a feeling this is for a writer to be able to inspire, and what a reward to reap!”

Today we all know the tale of tight-fisted Scrooge – “Bah! Humbug!” – and his dramatic change of heart after being visited by the ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future.

But A Christmas Carol didn’t just restore Dickens’ reputation and financial health. It also breathed new life into what was then a second-tier holiday that had fallen into disfavor.

As Les Standiford notes, in early nineteenth century England, the Christmas holiday “was a relatively minor affair that ranked far below Easter, causing little more stir than Memorial Day or St. George’s Day today. In the eyes of the relatively enlightened Anglican Church, moreover, the entire enterprise smacked vaguely of paganism, and were there Puritans still around, acknowledging the holiday might have landed one in the stocks.”

The date of Christmas itself is an arbitrary one, of course. There is no reference in the gospels to the birth of Jesus taking place on December 25, or in any specific month. When Luke says, “For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior,” there isn’t the slightest indication when that was.

And while the day was marked on Christian calendars, celebrations were muted. That changed when A Christmas Carol became an instant smash, stirring English men and women to both celebrate the holiday and remember the plight of the less fortunate. This was exactly the author’s intent.

Dickens grew up in poverty and was forced into child labor. (His father, a naval pay clerk who struggled to meet his obligations, was thrown into debtor’s prison.) Yet despite these handicaps, Dickens educated himself, worked diligently, and rose to international prominence as a master writer and storyteller.

He was a great believer in self-determination and, in particular, the transformative power of education. With learning, he said, a man “acquires for himself that property of soul which has in all times upheld struggling men of every degree.”

Yet in the London of Dickens’ day, only one child in three attended school. Some worked in shops, others in factories. Still others resorted to theft or prostitution to live. Dickens was determined to expose their plight. A Christmas Carol, in particular, is a bald-faced parable, something few novelists attempt… and even fewer successfully execute.

Dickens said his novels were for the edification of his audience. His goal was not just to entertain, but to enlighten. And A Christmas Carol was designed to deliver “a sledge-hammer blow” on behalf of the poor and less fortunate.

It worked. Scrooge – a character as well known as any in fiction – is now synonymous with “miser.” Yet through his remarkable transformation, the author reminds us that it is never too late to change, to free ourselves from selfish preoccupations.

Dickens’ biographer Peter Ackroyd and other commentators have credited the novelist with single-handedly creating the modern Christmas holiday. No, not the contemporary orgy of shopping, spending and ostentatious display. In A Christmas Carol, there are no Christmas trees, gaudy decorations or – apart from “the big, prize turkey” at the end – any presents at all. The only gifts exchanged are love, friendship and goodwill.

In one small book, Dickens changed the culture, inspired his contemporaries, and helped restore a holiday they were eager to revive.

More than a century and half later, A Christmas Carol is still a tonic for our spirits – and an annual reminder of the benefits of friendship, charity and celebration.

Good investing,

Alexander Green

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consider this your wake-up call.

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

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

Cybercrime Tops Physical Crime in 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

Capitalizing on Cyber Security

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

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

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

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

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

Good investing,

Alexander Green

by Alexander Green, Investment U Chief Investment Strategist
Monday, December 12, 2011: Issue #1662

I’ve been a table-pounding bear on the euro for almost two years now. With each passing day, that currency looks more and more like a failed government experiment.

Painful, structural changes are needed – and the profligate Greeks need to be booted out. And, even then, the euro is likely to continue its decline against other major currencies.

But the euro, perhaps in altered form, will survive. So don’t believe the doomsters who say we’re headed for another world financial calamity like we faced in 2008.

Too many investors are nervously sitting on the sidelines, missing great opportunities in today’s market. If you understand how the euro crisis is a good thing, you can start making serious money again. Here’s why…

Aside from being Chief Investment Strategist for Investment U, I also oversee the investment decisions of The Oxford Club – an exclusive community of like-minded investors. As I write, we currently have 21 open positions in our Oxford Trading Portfolio. Our average gain on open positions is 36 percent, even though our average holding period is 197 days.

During this volatile year, we also stopped out of 17 other positions. Five of these were sold at a loss. The other 12 were profitable. Our average total return on these 17 trades was 21 percent. (By comparison, the S&P 500 is up two percent for the year.)

One of the reasons we’ve prospered is that we ignored all the macro-economic squawking from week to week and focused instead on finding great businesses selling at compelling prices.

“That all sounds well and good,” an investor told me the other day. “But what are you going to do when the Eurozone collapses?”

Despite all the gloomy forecasts, that won’t happen.

One of the main reasons is Germany. Officials and citizens there aren’t panicking about the problems in the Eurozone because, in some important ways, they see it as an opportunity.

Yes, problems there are serious. Greece is a complete basket case. Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland have too much debt, too. But their problems are more manageable.

Germany knows this – and understands what’s at stake in the Eurozone. Germany is a world-class exporter. Yet because it shares a currency with weaker nations, its currency is cheaper and so, too, are its exports. The currency union has been like rocket fuel for Germany’s exports.

However, Germany doesn’t want to be put on the hook for bailing out smaller, spendthrift nations. And the country is particularly sensitive to criticism that it’s attempting to dominate Europe politically or economically.

So Germany is hanging back, treating the crisis much as the Republicans treated the debt-ceiling impasse earlier this year. The Germans see this as an opportunity to secure important policy concessions rather than an emergency to be solved at all costs.

Who can blame them? German unemployment is seven percent and falling. Deficits there are coming down. Germans don’t want to dictate to other union members. They want them to take responsibility and make serious reforms to their unemployment insurance system, their healthcare sector and other pieces of the welfare state.

Politically, these measures will be tough to swallow. That’s why we seen so much leadership turnover in Europe lately. But the time for half-measures is over. Even Sarkozy had told French citizens the uncomfortable truth: The state is simply unable to provide existing generous benefits much longer.

Once Europeans understand this in their bones, the necessary reforms can be made. And then, who knows, Americans may get serious about entitlement reform, too.

So don’t expect a financial catastrophe in Europe. These problems are serious and will take time to work out. But the currency crisis is a much-needed catalyst for important changes.

Recognize that and you can return to world equity markets with confidence – and start meeting your investment goals again.

Good Investing,

Alexander Green

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s why…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good investing,

Alexander Green

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are a number of important lessons here:

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

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

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

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

Good investing,

Alexander Green

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

[Editor's Note: Fund Advisors offers Investment U subscribers a complimentary portfolio review. For more information, feel free to call Rick - or his partner Greg Galloway - at 800.438.3040 or 407.667.4729.]