Share Buybacks: A Buy Signal You Can’t Ignore
by Alexander Green, Investment U Chief Investment Strategist
Monday, March 12, 2012: Issue #1727

Share buybacks increased by 46% in 2011. Has there ever been a more bullish indicator?

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

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

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

Is this a good thing? Absolutely…

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

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

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

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

More Buybacks Ahead

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

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

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

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

Having Your Cake and Eating it, Too…

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

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

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

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

Good Investing,

Alexander Green

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don’t let anyone scare you otherwise.

Good Investing,

Alexander Green

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

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

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

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

What is the prudent investor to do?

They Rise and They Fall

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

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

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

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

Cash is Not King, but Stocks Might Be

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

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

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

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

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

An Easy Way to Start Investing

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

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

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

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

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

Good Investing,

Alexander Green

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are just a few:

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

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

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

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

Good Investing,

Alexander Green

How do you identify great contrarian investment opportunities?

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

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

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

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

Lower Values, Higher Dividends…

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

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

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

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

Prime examples are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good Investing,

Alexander Green

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

A conversation with a friend last week sounded numbingly familiar.

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

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

Here’s what I mean…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good Investing,

Alexander Green

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 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 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.]