A Math Free Guide to Higher and Safer Returns

By Andrey Dashkov

I can make you instantly richer, and safely, by explaining a finance concept with a story about a dog.

There’s a hole in your pocket you probably don’t know about. You may feel instinctively that something is wrong, but unless you look in the right place, you won’t find the problem. The money you’re losing doesn’t appear in the minus column on your account statements, but you’re losing it nevertheless.

Frustrated? Don’t be. I’m going to tell you where to look and how to stop the drainage.

Volatility is every investor’s worst enemy. Over time, it poisons your returns. Unlike a 2008 style market drop, though, volatility poisons them slowly. There’s no obvious ailment to discuss with friends or hear about on CNBC. You only see it when you compare how much you lost to how much you could have earned—and looking back at your own mistakes is not a pleasant thing to do.

Here's the Replay of Last Nights Free Webinar....."Options and Premium Decay"

So instead let’s imagine two fictional companies: X-Cite, Inc., an amusement park operator with a volatile stock price that adventurous investors love; and Glacial Corp., a dull, defensive sloth of a corporation whose stock returns are consistent but often lower than those of its more glamorous counterpart.

Average return on both companies’ stocks was 5% for the past five years, but Glacial’s was less volatile. Safety is comfortable, but doesn’t higher volatility mean higher potential returns? Sometimes, but not always. When you accept high volatility, your returns might be higher at times, but they also might be lower. In other words, higher volatility generally means greater risk.

Nothing new so far, but the oft-overlooked point is that boring stocks make you richer over time.
The chart below shows each stock’s annual return over a five year period.

At first glance, Glacial Corp. appears to be the loser. It underperformed X-Cite in four out of five years. Both stocks returned 5% on average during these years, and X-Cite was almost always voted the prettiest girl in town. But for Year 3, it would be easy to persuade investors to buy X-Cite stock. Few would give Glacial a second glance.

Hold for the punchline: X-Cite, the stock your broker would have a much easier time selling you (before you read this article), would actually make you poorer. Let me explain.

I won’t get into any supercharged math here. Glacial is better because it makes you richer eventually. After five years, the total return on X-Cite is 25%. Not bad. Glacial? 27%. If you invested $10,000 in both (assuming no brokerage fees or taxes), at the end of Year 5 you would have earned $2,507 on X-Cite or $2,701 on Glacial.

	Year-End Account Balance
	X-Cite, Inc.	Glacial Corp.
Year 1	$10,500	$10,300
Year 2	$11,550	$11,021
Year 3	$10,164	$10,801
Year 4	$10,875	$11,341
Year 5	$12,507	$12,701
Total return	25%	27%

Where does the extra $194 come from? It comes from lower volatility. Although X-Cite looks like a winner most of the time, it has a higher standard deviation of returns. Note that X-Cite’s stock price dropped 12% in Year 3. The following year it increased 7%, while Glacial Corp.’s stock price only increased 5%—yet Glacial is still worth more from Year 3 onward. Why? X-Cite’s 7% jump is based on the previous year’s low.

But I promised to keep this note math-free, so imagine a person walking a dog instead. The shorter the leash, the less space the dog has to run around. The longer the leash, the more erratic the dog’s path will be. Standard deviation measures how much data tend to scatter around its mean—the path. As we just saw, low standard deviation also pays you money.

I could stop right here and hope that you take this lesson to heart, but I won’t. As much as I love describing finance concepts using clever company names and dogs, I want you to start making money right now.

I said this advice could make you instantly richer, and “instantly” doesn’t mean “maybe sometime in the future.” In the latest issue of Money Forever, we shared an opportunity to invest into a vehicle built to outperform the market by managing volatility. I was extremely excited to present it to our paid subscribers because I knew they’d love to earn more by risking less. Who wouldn’t?

So please pardon my blatant self-promotion. I work in an industry where 80% of the time the market is obsessed with the wrong stock, and the noise drowns out the right idea. I can silence the cacophony for you, though, and show you where to find the right ideas. And that goes beyond our most recent pick, although you do need it in your portfolio. Money Forever’s mission is to make your money last—plain and simple.

We think this pick will go a long way toward doing just that.

You can check it out and access our full portfolio immediately by subscribing risk free to Money Forever.

It’s about the price of Netflix, but unlike Netflix we won’t bother you if you decide to cancel. In fact, we’re so confident that the Money Forever portfolio can help you “earn more by risking less” that we’ll refund 100% of the cost if you decide to cancel within the first three months.

And we’ll even prorate your refund after that—it’s a no lose proposition. Click here to start earning more by risking less now.

The article A Math-Free Guide to Higher and Safer Returns was originally published at millersmoney.com.

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Here is the Ideal Year End Portfolio Fix

By Dennis Miller

Some years back, my wife and I embarked on a cross country trip in our first motor home. Driving a 40 foot bus was a bit frightening at first. I was poking along in the center lane of I-75 and big tractor trailers were whizzing past me. The bus came with a Citizens Band radio. I tuned in to channel 19, listened to the truckers, and sure enough they were complaining about my slow driving. So I announced myself, told them I was a rookie and asked for their patience.

There was a brief pause. Then one savvy old trucker came on and said in a deep southern drawl, “Son, there is only one rule you need to know to stay safe. Keep’er ‘tween the lines!” That’s precisely what my team and I recommend every investor do this month: keep your portfolio between the lines. One of the more popular investment strategies is to ride your winners and dump your losers. It’s hard to argue with that approach. You can buy 10 stocks, have five winners and five losers, and still make a lot of money.

Another popular strategy is to buy and hold, particularly larger companies that are big, profitable, and not likely to go anywhere. Those who recommend this strategy point to historical gains. That’s all well and good; but as Mike Tyson said, “Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.” Many of my friends were punched square in the jaw during the 2007-2008 meltdown.

Many had recently retired, taken a lump sum out of their 401(k)s, and invested 100% of their retirement savings in the market. Talk about a right hook! You work for the better part of 50 years, diligently make projections with your financial planner, and then your life savings shrinks by half... almost overnight. Follow that up with a trip to your advisor who says, “Trust me. Don’t worry. It will come back. It always does.”

Don’t worry?

In this case, they were right, eventually. The market recovered in less than six years. Does it always do that? Should we just hold an index fund and ride it out? The answer to both questions is “no.”

Protect Yourself Against the Next Right Hook

Portfolio rebalancing can be a very effective strategy, particularly with money earmarked for retirement. No one can guarantee the market will come back quickly from a downturn. Retirement investors must protect their principal because they might not have time to recover from a 40-50% drop in their net worth. Rebalancing your retirement portfolio is a critical step in protecting your assets. Instead of trying to maximize gains with excessive risk taking, anyone approaching retirement age should look to avoid catastrophic losses so that their portfolio can steadily provide income if and when they stop working.

The Best Protection

At Miller’s Money, protection starts with our three investment category allocations: 50% in Stocks, 20% in High Yield, and 30% in Stable Income (cash account substitutes). Within those categories we’ve implemented significant asset class and geographical diversification. We also recommend holding no more than 5% in any individual investment.

Rebalancing is nothing more than readjusting your portfolio at least annually to keep’er ‘tween the lines.
If you start with a $100,000 portfolio, then allocate $50,000 to your personal Stocks category with no more than $5,000 in any single investment. If you have a good year and your nest egg rises to $120,000, you adjust your stock allocation to $60,000 with no more than $6,000 in any single investment.

We hope that every year our portfolio grows and we have to sell some stocks at a gain to rebalance. Our strategy is to ride the winners and cut short any losses, minimizing the potential for Tyson style punches to the mouth. Buy and hold may work for 30 somethings, but it can be a death sentence for someone approaching retirement age.

Mr. Market does not care if you are working or retired; at some point there will be another sizable downturn. Rebalancing is key to keeping your wealth in tact when that happens. And, if you’re wondering where (if anywhere) bonds fit in to today’s best retirements plans, you can download a complimentary copy of the new Miller’s Money special report, The Truth About Bonds here.

The article The Ideal Year End Portfolio Fix was originally published at millers money

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Straight Talk from Yogi Berra: 9 Ways to Retire Rich

By Dennis Miller

“In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.”—Yogi Berra

It’s October, AKA the major league baseball postseason. As a lifelong baseball fan, I take the wisdom of Yogi Berra seriously. And when it comes to planning for the autumn of life, Yogi is spot on.

It seems as though every day an article titled “5 Tips for Retirement Saving” or something similar hits my inbox. I scan for the author’s name, and I’m amazed by how often it’s distinctly contemporary—Jennifer, Brandon, or another name of that vintage. Jennifer’s title is something like “staff writer,” and I immediately picture a fresh-faced young person with a newly minted journalism degree. After work, maybe she jumps in her starter BMW and heads to a local watering hole with her friends to gripe about student loan repayments.

“Jennifer” means well. After all, she’s just doing her job. She recommends setting financial goals, getting out of debt, living within your means, and saving from a young age. I won’t argue with those recommendations. Jennifer’s grandparents probably did just that. If you can pull off following that advice to a T, chances are you’ll accumulate a good deal of wealth.

However, once Jennifer has tried to put her advice to practice for a couple of decades, she might understand that it’s neither simple nor easy, despite how it might sound. Most people know what they should do, but it’s often tough and painful to execute in real life.

During my 74 years I’ve met a lot of successful and rich retired friends who sure didn’t go about it Jennifer’s way. How many baby boomers do you know who married young, raised a family, put their children through school, and consistently saved in their 20s, 30s or even 40s? There are a few, but many—if not most—young families lived through a decade or more of “Why is there is so much month left at the end of the money?”
Several times a month a 50- or 60-year-old Miller’s Money subscriber writes in asking for help with how to accomplish a last-ditch push to save. Truth be told, most of my friends never got serious about retirement until after they’d raised children. It doesn’t mean they were right; it’s just the way it was. Should they have started earlier? Of course. But they didn’t. Some didn’t know how, some were overwhelmed by day to day expenses, and some overspent on stuff, stuff, and more stuff. Many got serious in the nick of time, but they did it.

Retiring Rich When You’re Under the Wire

Whatever your age, fretting about what you didn’t do is futile. Start making the needed changes today.

The best place to begin is to define “rich.” For our team, rich means having enough money to choose whether or not to work and enough money that you control your time. Rich means you live comfortably according to your personal standards. If you’ve lived a middle class lifestyle, a rich retirement means you can maintain that same lifestyle without worry.

Ten days out of high school, I was on a train to Parris Island, South Carolina. One of the best teachers I ever had was SSgt. Thomas R. Phebus. He was an archetype—the ideal combination of common sense and straight talk. I’m going to take a page out of his book and share some straight talk on how to make a rich retirement your reality.

The 9 Step Program

#1—Saving money is a bitch! When I entered the work force, every major company and most government agencies offered some sort of pension plan. The bottom line: come work for us at age 25, stay for 40 years, retire at 65, and we’ll continue to pay you until you die, normally another 20 years or so.

Pension plans are no longer the norm. Corporate America just couldn’t do it. Some filed for bankruptcy and broke their promises. Either way, in the private sector, 401(k)s are the new norm. They’re optional—no one makes you contribute.

Now local governments are filing for bankruptcy, many unable to fulfill their pension promises. No matter whom you work for—a big or small corporation, a government agency, or yourself—if you want to retire, be damn sure you’re saving… no matter what you’ve been promised.

#2—Plan to work your tail off. I don’t know anyone who’s accumulated even modest wealth working 40 hours a week. If you want to work for 40 years and pay for 60 plus years of life, chances are you’ll have to do more than that.

When you work, you trade your time, talent, and expertise for money. When you retire, you trade your money for time. In theory, you can work 60 hours a week, live off two thirds of your income (40 hours’ worth), and invest the remaining one third (20 hours’ worth). However, if you start saving early, perhaps saving income equal to 10 hours of work will be enough. Your savings will have more time to accumulate and compound, and you’ve bought yourself extra leisure time along the way.

If both spouses are working hard outside the home, which is the norm today, work toward living off of one paycheck and investing the other (or using it to pay off debts and then start investing). Many of our retired friends did just that.

#3—Don’t complain when others have more. Someone always will.

This one saddens me. We have a few friends who chose to work 40 hours a week for most of their working lives. They felt it was important to spend more time at home with their families, and there’s nothing wrong with that choice. Still, it’s a trade-off.

I look at it as though they enjoyed mini slices of retirement time when they were young. If that’s your choice, don’t begrudge others who chose a different path and worked and/or saved more. They don’t owe you anything.

#4—Get out of debt and stay that way. Virtually every wealthy friend I have only started to build wealth after eliminating debt, including home mortgages. Some theory-loving pundits suggest taking out a low-interest mortgage and investing the money with the hope of earning more than the mortgage interest. Oh really? Most people’s investments don’t perform that well.

The chart below highlights how poorly the average investor stacks up:

Sure, some beat the odds, but even professional fund managers struggle to do so. As of mid-2013, 59.58% of large-cap funds, 68.88% of mid-cap funds, and 64.27% of small-cap funds underperformed their respective benchmark indices, according to Aye M. Soe, McGraw Hill financial director.

If the big boys have a hard time and the average investor earns just 2.1%, one better secure a darn low mortgage rate before borrowing to invest.

One of the top ways to blow your nest egg is to stop working while you still have a mortgage. Downsize if you have to. Your personal home is not an investment; it’s part of the cost of living.

#5—Get smart while you get out of debt. Commit some of your time to financial education long before you plan to retire. Part of the reason the average investor earns just 2.1% is that many, if not most, haven’t taken the time to learn. If you want to out-earn the average investor, start by investing in education.

Understanding the markets is an ongoing process. The investment world is constantly changing, and if your interests lie elsewhere, it can be a challenge to keep up. A little commonsense scheduling goes a long way, though. Record your favorite programs and watch or listen at night when you’re tired. Then find an hour a day when you are fresh and devote it to more focused study. An hour-long television show has 15-20 minutes of commercials. You can bank that much study time by hitting fast forward.

#6—Set realistic objectives. Get some professional help and a thorough financial checkup so you can set sane targets. With those in place, you can build a realistic plan. The sooner you go through this exercise, the less painful it will be to make any necessary lifestyle adjustments.

#7—Get a grip on your expenses. Investments appreciate (at least that’s the plan). Cars, televisions, and most other stuff depreciate.

Some years ago I read that around 90% of top of the line Lexuses and Mercedes were financed. I live in a community where most of the homes have three-car garages. I shake my head as I drive down the street in my Toyota and see three luxury cars in a garage. I wonder how many of them are financed. It’s easy to have well over $150,000 invested in rapidly depreciating automobiles. With so many long-term auto loans available today, it’s also easy to owe more than the car is worth fairly quickly. Once you get on that treadmill, it’s hard to get off.

All cars are not created equal. I’ve owned my share of luxury autos and can share from personal experience that a routine oil change can cost 10 times more than it does with a Toyota or the like. Is the added prestige of a luxury automobile really worth the extra cost?

#8—Put yourself first. Another common way to blow your nest egg is to spend too much money on others. Your family should not expect you to support them in adulthood, pay for your grandchildren’s college education, or help with major purchases. Take care of yourself and your spouse before anyone else. In time, your family will come to appreciate your self-sufficiency. If not, too bad.

#9—Take advantage of free money. I cannot fathom why such a large percentage of workers with 401(k)s do not maximize their contributions. In addition to the tax benefits, many employers match a percentage of those contributions; it’s free money.

If your employer doesn’t offer a 401(k), maximize your IRA contributions. And if you’re over age 50, don’t forget the catch-up provisions that allow you to save even more. This is low-hanging fruit, so run and grab as much of it as you can.

Retiring rich requires a series of choices; they are often difficult. A comfortable retirement is not a foregone conclusion, even if you lived comfortably in your working years. Since WWII, we have enjoyed one of the most productive economies the world has ever seen, yet many seniors are broke. When you reach retirement age, you don’t have to be one of them.

Start mapping your own path to a rich retirement by reading Miller’s Money Weekly, our free weekly e-letter where my team and I cover pressing money matters and share unique investment insights for seniors, savers and other income investors—all in plain English.

Click here to receive your complimentary copy every Thursday

The article Straight Talk from Yogi Berra: 9 Ways to Retire Rich was originally published at millers money

Get out latest FREE eBooK "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here

Yield Hungry Baby Boomers Are on a Death March

By Dennis Miller

Today’s forecast: yield starved investors forced into the market by seemingly permanent low interest rates will continue to be collateral damage. For some, that collateral damage may involve more than the loss of income opportunities… many could be wiped out completely.

At the Casey Research Summit last month, I asked the participants in our discussion group: “If there were safe, fixed income opportunities available paying 5 - 7%, would you move a major portion of your portfolio out of the market?”

They all answered a resounding, “Absolutely.”

Participants relying on their nest eggs for retirement income said they felt forced into the market for yield. Their retirement projections weren’t based on 2% yields, the rough rate now available on fixed income investments. They’d planned on 6% or so. What other choice do they have now?

The Federal Reserve knows seniors and savers are collateral damage. Former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has openly acknowledged that the Fed’s low interest rate policy is designed to prompt savers to take more chances with riskier investments. In their book Code Red, authors John Mauldin and Jonathan Tepper shine a harsh light on that policy, writing:

Central banks want people to take their money out of safe investments and put them into risky investments. They call it the “portfolio balance channel,” but you could call it “starve people for yield and they’ll buy anything.”

I have to agree with Mauldin and Tepper.

The collateral damage inflicted upon seniors and savers is twofold. First, it’s the loss of safe income opportunities. The Fed’s low interest rate policies have saved banks and the government an estimated $2 trillion in interest alone. $2 trillion added to the balances of 401(k) and IRA accounts would sure bolster a lot of desperate retirement plans.

But there’s no sign the Fed will reverse its low interest rate policies in the foreseeable future. So, yield starved investors, including throngs of baby boomers maturing into retirement age each day, play the market and risk their nest eggs in the process.

The Federal Reserve has succeeded in forcing savers to take billions of dollars out of fixed income investments to hunt for better yields. Take a look at the chart below showing the S&P 500’s performance since 2004. The Index has almost tripled since its 2009 bottom. There hasn’t been a major correction in well over 1,000 days.

When the bubble burst in 2007, the S&P took a 57% drop. I had friends just entering retirement who suffered 40-50% losses. Their stories are not uncommon, and some are now back at work—and not by choice.

This is the second form of collateral damage, and it can be much more devastating. It’s one thing to lose an income opportunity and call it collateral damage, but quite another to lose 50% or more of your life savings. If the market drops radically, as it did less than a decade ago, the life savings of many baby boomers could be destroyed.

No one knows when the next correction will occur. However, many pundits believe a major correction is due. Others say we can continue on the same track, much like Japan has done for 25 years. Here’s what we do know: the Fed has made it clear that it plans to hold interest rates down for quite some time.

When you invest money earmarked for retirement, you risk trying to time the market. Even seasoned investors would be foolhardy to think they’ll have enough time to easily exit their positions and lock in gains.

It never works that way.

Now is the time for caution. Whether you’re a do it yourself investor or work with an investment professional, it’s a good time for a complete portfolio analysis with an eye on this question:

What happens to my portfolio if the market completely collapses?

There are concrete steps you can take to avoid catastrophic collateral damage. Sticking to firm position limits, diversifying geographically (including international holdings), non correlated assets, setting trailing stop losses, and holding short-duration bonds come to mind.

Be wary of any advisor touting the “buy and hold” philosophy. They’d point to the chart above and note that the market went from 700 to 1,900+ in five years. If investors are patient, it will come back after the next drop. Unfortunately, seniors don’t have time to sit around and wait.

No one can guarantee the market will rebound as quickly as it did in the last decade. It’s not the “buy” in “buy and hold” that concerns me. There are excellent companies out there that pay healthy dividends and will rebound relatively quickly. Depending on your age and financial condition, it’s the indefinite holding that could be a problem.

If you’re not comfortable holding an investment for a decade or more, consider using a stop loss. After all, would you rather suffer a major loss and hope against hope that the market rebounds fast, or be proactive and keep your nest egg intact?

The best way to avoid becoming collateral damage is to take safety precautions before the next big, bad event takes place. One easy (and free) way to start strengthening your financial know how is to read our e-letter, Miller’s Money Weekly. Each Thursday my team I cover hot button financial topics and share the tools income investors need to live rich in today’s low yield world.

Click here to begin receiving your complimentary copy today.

The article Yield Hungry Baby Boomers Are on a Death March was originally published at millers money

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Why Shareholders Should Fear the Hasty Corporate Marriage

By Dennis Miller

I never understood why Sears bought Kmart. Sears was a giant retailer, the dominant tenant in shopping malls throughout the US. Kmart was the spawn of S. S. Kresge’s dime stores. They served different consumer groups—different strata. When they came together, they combined a lot of the same merchandise in their stores, and they both lost their identities. I don’t see either surviving much longer.

Instead of allowing two companies to die, some embarrassed management teams settle on divorce, selling off the scraps for a fraction of what they paid—and leaving angry stockholders to ruminate over how management could have spent the cash better (think dividends).

How can titans of industry capable of earning and retaining billions of dollars also lose billions seemingly overnight in a bad acquisition?

To help answer that question, I’m going to focus on companies that merge with the intention of truly melding into one. They may continue to operate under separate names; however, management thinks the companies’ synergy will make both stronger—a true marriage.

How Three Strata of Consumers Buy

In my first career, companies hired me to improve their market share and gross profit margins. My team and I would start by surveying a client’s good customers, asking: “What criteria do you use to select a supplier, and how do you rank those criteria?”

The answer was always the same: service, quality, and price, and in that order. For individual consumers, though, the order of that answer varies.

There are three general strata of consumers. The first is the “carriage trade,” comprised of affluent people who live in expensive neighborhoods and might shop at Neiman Marcus. In the ‘50s and ‘60s, these folks drove Cadillacs. When we re-collated out our survey results by stratum, this group ranked quality first, service second, and price third.

If your business serves the carriage trade, you focus on product improvement, serving the customer better, and maintaining your profit margin. That’s how you beat your competition.

The next consumer stratum encompasses the middle class. Think Buicks and Oldsmobiles. These consumers rated service first, quality second, and price third. They could be swayed by a good sale occasionally, but it had to be a heck of a good deal.

Consumers in the third stratum want only one thing: the lowest possible price. These consumers clip coupons and are willing to drive several extra miles to save money. This is why Walmart stores have much larger trading areas than their competition. Walmart does a great job in this stratum by advertising price as the primary reason to shop at its stores.

If you do business in the third stratum, you look for every possible opportunity to cut your costs so you can beat your competitor by offering lower prices while maintaining your margins.

As an investor, if the strata of two merging companies don’t line up, be cautious of any hype. If you don’t think it’s a good fit, move on to the next potential investment.

Culture Conflict Brews Animosity

Conflicting corporate cultures should also send up a huge red flag in investors’ minds. The unwritten rules within any company that dictate its internal and external behavior matter, and they don’t change easily.

Think of any married couple you know with conflicting beliefs and values. Those marriages always struggle; daily life becomes a constant negotiation, and that can go on for decades. The couple quibbles over how to spend money, how to discipline children, which other couples to socialize with, and just about everything else. Frugal Fred throws a fit each time Spending Sally comes home from the store. He thinks Sundays are for football, while she wants to spend the day antiquing. She’s dead set on sending their kids to private school, and he thinks it’s a waste. Ultimately, one partner has to adjust his or her core values, or these conflicts will foster resentment… and often end in divorce.

Similar conflicts take place in the corporate world. If the unwritten norms, beliefs, and values of the merging companies don’t synch, they’re heading down a rocky path, possibly to Splitsville.

Dominating a Stratum Develops a Culture

When a company dominates a stratum, a distinct culture emerges. Think of Apple, which dominates the high-end computer sector. It’s constantly looking for ways to improve and innovate its product lines so the company can raise prices and increase its margins. I just bought my first Apple computer, and I’ve found that its customer service is far and away the best.

Contrast the attitude of Apple’s employees with those at Walmart. Walmart’s corporate employees focus on negotiating better prices from vendors and cutting costs anywhere possible. Walmart passes those savings along to customers, and its in-store employees, in turn, offer minimal assistance.

Apple and Walmart are both profitable, but their corporate cultures are worlds apart and could never produce a happy marriage.

On the other hand, consider Beats, the manufacturer of headphones and speakers that Apple purchased for $3 billion. There’s controversy as to whether Apple overpaid, and only time will tell.

The two companies’ cultures seem to be a good fit, though. Beats products are expensive, and every technician I ask recommends them. Apple stores sell several brands of expensive, high-quality headphones, but Beats’ headphones will be in Apple stores soon, designed specifically for Apple products and Apple customers. Many of the other brands will probably disappear.

Miller’s Money Chief Analyst Andrey Dashkov adds that, “Synergies tend to materialize when the customer base and approach to the market are the same between the two parties. Kraft’s acquisition of General Foods is a good example.”

He agrees that the Apple/Beats deal looks good for many of those reasons.

When Management Doesn’t Fit the Mold

There are dozens of other invisible aspects of corporate culture. One past client of mine was a corporate travel agency. It priced its services by rebating part of the commissions the airlines paid travel agents. My client didn’t want to get caught up operating on razor-thin margins, so it looked for ways to bring extra value to its clients to justify its pricing.

One of the company’s potential clients was a very profitable member of the Dow 30 Index—let’s call it the Big Name Company. My client secured its business after making a presentation to the corporate vice president of sales by asking, “Are you aware that over 90% of your sales people are traveling between 9:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Monday through Friday?”

The vice president was shocked. Face-to-face selling time in front of customers is gold. My client pointed out that Big Name Company was losing potential sales time to travel, and it was costing the company.
I asked my client why he’d done that analysis. Turns out, he had a friend who worked for the competition, and every time it hired a salesperson from Big Name Company, the company ran into difficulty. The new employee couldn’t adapt to its culture of working 50-60 hours a week.

The focal point of management is another key aspect of company culture. Some companies micromanage the smallest details from the corporate level. These companies haven’t developed managers who are risk takers and independent thinkers. If such a company merges with a decentralized company, the transition can be particularly difficult. In these situations, it’s not unusual for top managers to leave shortly after the merger because they just don’t fit the mold.

Investment Implications

As an investor, I only consider betrothed companies as investment candidates when they have similar cultures and values and operate in the same market stratum. When you read about a potential merger or acquisition, look beyond the hype. If companies are a good fit, there are a lot of hidden synergies which can lead to pleasant earnings surprises. There are terrific opportunities out there for folks who crunch the numbers and evaluate strata and corporate culture.

For more commonsense financial insight and timely investment news, sign up to receive your free copy of our e-letter, Miller’s Money Weekly, every Thursday.

The article Why Shareholders Should Fear the Hasty Corporate Marriage was originally published at millers money

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here

Everything You Need to Know About the SP 500 Until Christmas

By Andrey Dashkov

When I need to clear my mind, I put on my beat up Saucony sneakers and drive to nearby Deer Lake Park in Burnaby, British Columbia. After a couple of miles, though, as my body gets into a rhythm, my mind wanders back to the thought that occupy it for hours each day: where will this market go next?

And I’ve thought a lot about what went on this summer. Since June 1st:

•  S&P 500 is up 2.7%, having set a new record high in September;

•  MSCI World index is down 0.5%;

•  10 year Treasury yield is down from 2.54% to 2.50%;

•  Brent Crude 0il is down 12.8%; and

•  Gold is down 2.2%.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that the U.S. economy expanded by 4.6% year on year in the second quarter, up sharply from the first quarter’s disappointing 2.1% annual decline. Consensus estimates for annual GDP growth in the third and fourth quarters of this year are about 3%.

The stage seems to be set for the fifth straight year of positive economic growth in the US; however, we’re always cautious about government supplied information, especially during an election cycle.

At the moment, macro developments seem closely intertwined with stock market performance. Instead of slumping, the market was rather vibrant this summer. The S&P 500 showed resilience, reaching higher highs after a dip in late July and early August that coincided with increased uncertainty surrounding the Ukrainian crisis.

Geopolitics aside, the market was supported by GDP growth, which in turn was underpinned by strong corporate profits and margins. In fact, in the second quarter, the S&P 500 set a new record for profit margins: 9.1%. So much for “sell in May and go away.”

Expanding earnings and margins are great news on the fundamental front. Of the trends we observed this summer, at least two will benefit S&P 500 companies’ profitability. Cheaper oil may keep energy costs down, while consumers are more than willing to swipe their debit and credit cards. In August, consumer confidence jumped to its highest level since October 2007, having increased for four months in a row.

Loose Money Helping Stocks in the Short Term

The Fed has done its part, too. Long-term effects of its prolonged loose monetary policy aside, it’s hard to argue that it hasn’t helped stocks in the short term. With Treasury rates still low, debt options abound, and companies can obtain cheap funding for things like capital expenditures and buying back shares.

In the first quarter, 290 companies from the S&P 500 bought back shares at a cost of $159.3 billion, 59% more than a year ago. Dividends are up as well: in the first quarter, S&P 500 companies spent a record $241.2 billion on dividends and repurchases together, according to Standard & Poor’s.

Second quarter share repurchases were estimated at $106 billion, according to Financial Post. That’s much lower than first-quarter repurchases (though the official numbers aren’t out yet) and down 10% year on year.

Buyback Frenzy Is a Net Positive for Share Prices

However, the most important takeaway is that the cumulative effect of the recent buyback frenzy was positive for share prices and dividends. With fewer shares, it’s easier for companies to maintain dividend payments. Higher share prices may drive down dividend yields, but companies tend to increase dividends over time, which makes up for that in part. And despite the S&P 500’s significant growth over the past five years, dividend yields have not decreased as much as one would expect.

The chart below tracks the S&P 500’s median dividend yield since the first quarter of 2009.

The median dividend yield decreased just slightly over this period: from 1.9% in 1Q09 to 1.7% in 2Q14, and it’s held relatively steady over the past three years.

The good news is that S&P companies aren’t stretching their balance sheets too thin to cover these dividend payments—these payments are backed by earnings. The median dividend payout ratio (the ratio of dividends paid to net income), although up from five years ago, still looks solid.

S&P companies can successfully cover their dividends with earnings, so there’s no reason to fear that they’ll have to borrow to keep paying them. However, a lot of investors worry about leverage. On one hand, financial leverage boosts return on equity (ROE), and prudent borrowing can be a positive for investors. On the other hand, large amounts of leverage leads to volatility in earnings, a less stable balance sheet, and risk that affects valuations.

Debt and Cash Both Up

These are legitimate concerns, but our next chart shows that in the past five years, S&P companies have increased debt while also accumulating a lot of cash on their balance sheets.

Debt and cash grew at about the same pace during the last couple of years. There were many reasons for this trend, but two interrelated ones stand out: the abundance of cheap debt that S&P companies took advantage of (why spend your own cash when you can finance on such great terms and pay it back over a long period?); and the desire to keep interest on that debt as low as possible by making credit rating agencies happy and holding a lot of cash in the bank.

If a correction is in the cards for the near term, this cash, increased earnings, and the support coming from share buybacks will provide some cushion for these companies’ valuations.

Why We’re Not “Permabears”

So what’s ahead? I wish I knew. There are a lot of market bears out there who say this rally will come to a halt sooner rather than later, and the S&P will fall off a cliff. I stay away from calling tops and bottoms and wonder how many pundits actually have any skin in the game. Going short the market requires timing; so any “permabear” who puts money where his mouth is may lose a lot if his timing is wrong.
I’m not saying the rising market is somehow “wrong.” There are solid company level fundamentals and positive macro-level data points here and there that support a significant part of its growth.

Your Plan to Profit

We’re pragmatists at Miller’s Money. Quantitative easing and basement-level interest rates have flooded the market with dollars and eroded yields, but you should use these circumstances to capture some of the benefits they’ve created. No, you can’t earn much on CDs. No, dividend yields might not beat inflation (at least not all of them, and certainly not every estimate of inflation). And yes, the current rally will eventually end, one way or another. We just don’t know when or how. No one does.

What matters is that even in this situation you can protect your financial well being by sticking to our core strategy: diversify geographically and across sectors; and invest in assets that provide robust yield relative to risk and have the potential to rise in price. You can learn more about the Miller’s Money Forever core strategy here—a time-tested plan designed for seniors, savers and like-minded conservative investors.

The article Everything You Need to Know About the S&P Until Christmas was originally published at millers money.

Make sure to get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Beware of Flashy Stock Repurchases When The Market Is on The Rise

By Andrey Dashkov

Retail giant Bed Bath & Beyond just announced plans to buy back another $2 billion in shares, which the company will start doing after it completes its current share repurchase program. You’ve seen it before: Press releases emphasize that buybacks return value to shareholders, analysts sometimes rely on repurchases to spot a stock to write up next, and management likes to tout their focus on shareholder returns. But what’s the real story? Why would a company buy its own shares?


There are but a few situations when returning cash to shareholders instead of paying dividends or investing in new projects is prudent:

• The company has largely exhausted investment opportunities that would generate a positive net present value (NPV).
• The stock is trading below its intrinsic value; or
• The tax on dividends is so high compared to the capital gains tax that it makes sense to boost the share price and let shareholders enjoy the extra return instead of receiving heavily taxed dividends.

When these situations happen we support repurchases. In the reality, however, managers often have their own reasons to buy back shares; let’s look at the more popular ones.

First, management’s compensation is often based on share price performance or earnings based metrics like earnings per share (EPS), which buybacks are designed to boost.

Second, higher share price increases the value of a company’s options. Managers are often shareholders, too, but unlike you and me, they have direct access to the Treasury. When managers own a lot of their own company’s stock, they may have too much skin in the game. This may skew their preferences toward increasing the share price at the expense of long term business growth.

Third, share buybacks became a standard (and often abused) signal to the market that: a) the company’s stock is undervalued, and b) that management takes care of the shareholders. Both of these statements may be correct in isolation, based on the company’s fundamentals and management practices. Nonetheless, a buyback should not convince you that either is true.

One additional reason is often overlooked. Many a CEO has been fired for an acquisition that did not work out. When the decision is made to dump the acquisition, it is accompanied by a write off against earnings, sometimes worth billions of dollars. Wall Street armchair quarterbacks are quick to point out how much better off shareholders would have been if they had just paid out what they lost in dividends. Buying back company shares, with all the accompanied hoopla, is less likely to be a career threatening move.

Linking the two subjects together makes for nice copy; however, keep it in perspective. For example, a technology company that realizes their product line is becoming obsolete will often make acquisitions to increase their product line market share, or move them into a new business with long term potential. Buying back company stock, then having to go into the market and borrow at high interest rates, might be the exact wrong move. The key is making the right acquisitions for the company to continue to grow and pay dividends for the next generation.

In fact, managers have proven to be pretty bad stock pickers even when they have only one stock to pick. As my colleague Chris Wood showed in A Look at Stock Buybacks, managements have bought shares of their own companies at pretty bad times in the past. Moreover, the expectations of higher valuation based on higher EPS did not always materialize. Even though a lot of investors use P/E as their main gauge of value (which they shouldn’t), there is no convincing evidence that buybacks can support high valuation multiples in the long term.

Your Bottom Line

 

History has shown that the only value-creating buybacks were the ones carried out when stocks were deeply undervalued. In those instances, the repurchases helped companies outperform the market. But overall the optimism and confidence inducing press releases that accompany buybacks should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

As a rule of thumb, beware of increased buybacks when the market is on the rise (everybody is an investment guru when everything is going up) or when management compensation is closely tied to the share price performance or earnings based metrics. Companies with better corporate governance may fare better when it comes to managing conflicts of interest, but there is a significant vested interest there that investors should be aware of. Don’t mistake noise for a sign is all.

When it comes to returning value to shareholders, we appreciate companies that invest in long term projects—or pay dividends. Despite the potential tax implications, the yield strapped investors may be better served with a special dividend these days than with a promise of a better price in the future.

Learn more ways to cut through press rhetoric by signing up for our free weekly e-letter, Miller’s Money Weekly, where my colleagues and I share timely financial insight tailored for seniors and conservative investors alike.

Sign up here, and we’ll send a complimentary copy straight to your inbox every Thursday

The article Beware of Flashy Stock Repurchases When The Market Is on The Rise was originally published at Millers Money

Get the complete schedule for the Premier Trader University free trading webinars....Just Click Here!
 

And the Band Plays On

By Dennis Miller 

Quantitative Easing (QE) is no longer a surprise, but the fact that it's continued for so long is. Like many Miller’s Money readers, I believe the government cannot continue to pay its bills by having the Federal Reserve buy debt with newly created money forever. This has gone on much longer than I'd have ever dreamed possible.

Unemployment numbers dropped in December and the Federal Reserve tapered their money creation from $85 billion to $75 billion per month. Why did the unemployment rate drop? Primarily because people whose benefits have expired are no longer considered unemployed. The government classifies them as merely discouraged, but the fact remains that they don't have jobs.

So, what is the problem? Let's start with the magnitude of money creation. Tim Price sums it up well in an article on Sovereign Man:

"Last year, the U.S. Federal Reserve enjoyed its 100th anniversary, having been founded in a blaze of secrecy in 1913. By 2007, the Fed's balance sheet had grown to $800 billion. Under its current QE program (which may or may not get tapered according to the Fed's current intentions), the Fed is printing $1 trillion a year.

To put it another way, the Fed is printing roughly 100 years' worth of money every 12 months. (Now that's inflation.)"

As Doug Casey likes to remind us: Just because something is inevitable, does not mean it is imminent. Well, sooner or later imminent and inevitable are going to meet. Interest rates are depressed because the Federal Reserve is holding our debt. Eventually those creditors outside the Federal Reserve will demand much higher interest rates.

Currently, 30 year Treasuries are paying 3.59%. If interest rates rose by 2%—still below what was considered "normal" a decade ago—the interest cost to our government would jump by 30% or more. It's hard to imagine the huge budget cuts or tax increases it would take to pay for that.

In the meantime, investors are caught between the proverbial rock and hard place. We cannot invest in long- or medium-term, "safe," fixed income investments because they are no longer safe. They could easily destroy your buying power through inflation.

At the same time, the stock market is not trading on fundamentals. It is on thin ice. Just how thin is that ice? Take a look at what happened when the Federal Reserve stopped propping up the economy with money printing.

Each time they stopped with their stimulus the market dropped. In the summer of 2013, Bernanke made his famous "taper" remark and the market reacted negatively, immediately. The Fed has had to introduce more money into the system to stop the slide.

Investors who need yield know they have virtually no place else to go but the stock market. Most realize it is a huge bubble; they only hope to get out ahead of everyone else when the time comes. And we can't hold cash; inflation would clobber us. So, we've been forced into the market to protect and grow our nest eggs.
It reminds me of playing musical chairs as a kid. The piano player would slow down the tempo. We would all grab the back of a chair and get ready to sit. No one wanted to be the one left standing.

Today the band is playing the "Limbo Rock." Investors are in limbo, knowing the music will stop eventually. We're all going to have to grab a chair quickly—and the stakes are much higher now.

The chart below on margin debt comes courtesy of my friend and colleague at Casey Research, Bud Conrad.

Investors now have a dangerous amount of money invested on margin—meaning they borrowed money from their brokers to buy even more stock. There are strict margin requirements on how much one can borrow as a percentage of their holdings. If the stock price drops, the investor receives a margin call from his broker. That has to take place quickly under SEC requirements. The broker can also sell the holding at market to bring the client's account back into compliance.

Record margin debt, coupled with the thought of traders using computers to read the trend and automatically place orders in fractions of a second, paints an uneasy picture. The unemotional computers will not only sell their holdings, they may well initiate short sales to drive the market down even further.

As the lyrics from the "Limbo Rock" ask, "How low can you go?" When the market limbos down, it will likely be faster and further than we've imagined.

Why is 2014 different? I've been taking stock of 2013 as I prepare our tax filings. Our portfolio did very well last year, thanks in great measure to the analysts at Casey Research. With our Bulletproof Income strategy in place, I am very comfortable with our plans going forward.

At the same time, I am as jittery as a 9-year-old walking slowly around a circle of chairs, knowing that sooner or later the music will stop. The music has played for years now and we are in the game, whether we like it or not. Pundits have gone from saying "this is the year" to more tempered remarks like "this can't go on forever." They place their bets on inevitable, but hedge them on imminent.

What can we do? One of the mantras behind our Bulletproof Income strategy is: "Avoid catastrophic losses." Doug Casey has warned us that in a drastic correction most everyone gets hurt, so our goal is to minimize that damage and its impact on our retirement plans.

Here are a few things you can do to protect yourself.

• Diversify. Not all sectors rise and fall at the same speed. Optimal diversification requires more than just various stock picks across various sectors. Limit your overall stock market exposure according to your age. You don't have to be all in the market. There are still other ways to earn good, safe returns. International diversification will give you an added margin of safety, too, not only from a market downturn but also from inflation.
• Apply strict position limits. No more than 5% of your overall portfolio should be in any single investment. When I look at the record margin debt, I wonder how so many investors can go hog wild on a single investment. Planning for retirement demands a more measured approach.
• Set trailing stop losses. If you set trailing stop losses on your positions at no more than 20%, the most you could lose on any single trade is 1% of your overall portfolio. The beauty of trailing stops is the maximum loss seldom happens. As the stock rises the trailing stop rises with it, which will lock in some additional profits.
• Monitor regularly. As part of my regular annual review, I go over each one of my stop-loss positions. I use an online trading platform to keep track of them. Depending on the stock, you may want to place a stop-loss sell order or use an alert service that will notify you if the stock drops below your set point. Other investors prefer to use a third party for notification.
  
  So, why do I check my stop losses? My particular trading platform accepts the orders "GTC," meaning "good 'til cancelled." But GTC really means "Good for 60 days and then you have to re-enter the notification." Just read the small print.
  
  Also, sometimes stop losses need adjusting. As a stock gets closer to the projected target price, you may want to reduce the trailing stop loss to 15%, or maybe even 10%, to lock in more profits.

We all want to enjoy our retirement years and have some fun. I sleep well knowing we have several good circuit breakers in place. We may get stopped out of several positions and stuck temporarily holding more cash than we'd like. But that means we've avoided catastrophic loss and have cash to take advantage of the real bargains that are bound to appear.

And so the band plays on as baby boomers and retirees continue to limbo.

From the very first issue of Money Forever our goal—my mission­­—has been to help those who truly want to take control of their retirement finances. I want our subscribers to have more wealth, a better understanding of how to create a Bulletproof portfolio, and confidence their money will last throughout retirement.

With that in mind, I’d like to invite you to give Money Forever a try. The current the subscription rate is affordable – less than that of your daily senior vitamin supplements. The best part is you can take advantage of our 90-day, no-risk offer. You can cancel for any reason or even no reason at all, no questions asked, within the first 90 days and receive a full, immediate refund. As you might expect, our cancellation rates are very low, and we aim to keep it that way. Click here to find out more.

The article And the Band Plays On was originally published at Millers Money

The Ty Cobb Approach to Retirement Investing

By Dennis Miller

When baseball fans talk about players from the early 1900s, Babe Ruth is normally the first person mentioned. He was a great home run hitter with 714 career home runs, a record that stood for almost 40 years. Only two men have surpassed it. Ruth struck out 1,330 times, a record that also stood for several decades.


Most people think of Ty Cobb as a gritty player who held the career stolen base record for many years. But let’s look a bit deeper. Ty Cobb broke into major league baseball in 1905 at the age of 19 and hit .240 his first season. For the next 23 seasons, he hit over .300.

Cobb holds a lifetime batting average of .367, a record that still stands today: 85 years and counting. His career strikeout total is 357. He averaged 14.9 strikeouts per season, striking out 3.1% of the time, a remarkably low average.

Young people love to swing for the fences and hit those huge gains. With retirement money, an occasional home run is nice; however, our overriding goal is to preserve capital and avoid catastrophic losses. Ty Cobb didn’t hit as many home runs as Babe Ruth, but he was a model of consistency.

Once you’ve built your nest egg, you’re not trying to run up the score; you’re trying to stay ahead.
Anyone who has tried to play catch-up with his portfolio can tell you there’s no such thing as a five run homer. Newsletters touting the chance to double or triple your money can grab our attention, but experienced investors realize that those gains are only possible if you’re willing to take on the commensurate risk.

Swinging for the fences with retirement money won’t get the job done. With money that must last forever, putting your emotions aside and focusing on safety and consistency is paramount.

Safety First

 

Have you ever watched a thin-ice rescue scene? A person standing with all of his weight on thin ice can easily fall through as all his weight is concentrated. The rescuer trying to reach this person normally lies flat across the ice, spreading out his weight.

The same approach works for today’s retirement investor. Step one is to spread risk through diversification among (and within) asset classes, selective investments, position limits, and real-time monitoring of your portfolio via stop losses. While we like the income, avoiding catastrophic losses is our mantra.

It’s also worthwhile to reassess just what “safe” means. We can’t count on inflation remaining at historical 2% levels. FDIC insured CDs and US Treasuries are now guaranteed money losers when you factor in inflation. (“FDIC insured” does not shield us from inflation.)

This brings us to the Step two in the Ty Cobb approach: inflation protection. Investing in long-term, fixed-income investments during times of high inflation can result in catastrophic losses, precisely what we need to avoid.

Step three: find investments with low interest-rate sensitivity. Ross Perot coined the phrase “giant sucking sound” to describe jobs leaving the US. That will pale in comparison to the giant sucking sound when interest rates start to rise and everyone tries to exit the market at once. The scene after Bernanke’s tapering remark was a small preview. Interest-rate-sensitive investments will be hit hard and fast.

The long-term bond market offers a good example of interest rate sensitivity. Take an A rated, ten year corporate bond paying 3.68%, for example. Now imagine you bought $10,000 worth; you’d receive $368 per year in interest until maturity. If, however, market interest rates rise during that time, you’d have to discount your selling price to resell that bond in the aftermarket to compensate for its below market interest rate.

“Duration” is the term for calculating that discount. The duration for this bond is 8.41. For every 1% rise in market interest rates, the resale value of your bond will drop 8.41%, or $841.00—more than two years’ accumulated interest. Should this happen, you’d have two lousy choices: You could hold on to the bond at a lower than current market value interest rate until it matures; or you could sell your bond for less than you paid for it.

If inflation is the reason interest rates are rising, that decreases your buying power even further, particularly if you choose to hold on to the bond.

While top quality bonds are considered safe, that safety stops at the borrower’s ability to repay you. It does not protect your investment from a reduced resale value in the aftermarket, nor does it protect you from inflation. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, let me repeat myself: holding long term, low interest paying bonds at the wrong time can produce catastrophic results.

Interest-rate sensitivity isn’t limited to bonds. The stock market now has a similar problem. Many companies paying high dividends are so flooded with cash that they’ve become interest-rate sensitive. Utility stocks, for one, come to mind. When Bernanke said “taper,” the prices of utility stocks tumbled.

It is important to understand that this is a distinct type of risk. Should the market rise dramatically, stocks and bonds with high interest-rate sensitivity will be extremely vulnerable.

The final step in the Ty Cobb approach is finding a way to maintain your quality of life while managing your portfolio. While “set it and forget it” isn’t an option, no one wants to spend all of his or her time fretting about money. Finding ways to accomplish your investment goals and to sleep comfortably at night is what it’s all about.

So, to recap, your overriding objectives are to:

• avoid catastrophic losses;
• protect ourselves from inflation;
• minimize interest rate sensitivity; and
• free up time to enjoy life.

Your Investment Pyramid

 

Core holdings should make up the base your investment pyramid. Core holdings—precious metals, farmland, foreign currencies—are about survival. Hopefully you never have to touch them. No, I’m not suggesting that you prepare for the apocalypse, but we all need survival insurance. Mentally and practically, it should be separate from your active portfolio.

On the other hand, the investments recommended in the Money Forever portfolio are for income and profit. These investments are meant to keep you going for the rest of your life.

Here are the allocations you should use in today’s market. As conditions change, you may have to make adjustments, but we’ll help you do just that as events unfold.

The Ty Cobb approach uses three investment asset classes:

1. Equities providing growth and income and a high margin of safety;
2. Investments made for higher yield coupled with appropriate safety measures; and
3. Conservative, stable income vehicles.

50-20-30 Equals Bulletproof

 

You can balance yield and safety in today’s market. How safe is the Miller’s Money Forever approach? Bulletproof, in my opinion. And that comes from a former Marine who understands that bulletproof is doggone safe—but nuclear trumps all. There are some cataclysmic events that are effectively impossible for individual investors to predict or protect against. So, unless you’re the “build a nuclear bunker” type, our approach should let you sleep well at night and enjoy retirement with minimal financial stress.

We currently recommend holding 50% of your portfolio in solid, diversified stocks. These stocks should provide dividend income and growth through appreciation. Invest no more than 5% in any single pick, and use a 20% trailing stop loss. This way, the most you can lose on any single pick is 1% of your portfolio. Sometimes we recommend tightening our stop losses on specific stocks—we’ll notify you of those circumstances in a timely fashion.

If you follow the 5% rule, you should have no more than 10 stock positions in this 50% slice of your portfolio.

You might be wondering: Why not just invest in an S&P 500 fund? When the market swings, S&P 500 fund investors will be the first ones headed for the door, with the program traders that short the S&P chasing them out. We got our clue with the “taper caper,” and we want to mitigate that risk.

For the Money Forever portfolio, we searched for solid companies that are not so flooded with investor money that they’ve become interest-rate sensitive. Dealing with our picks individually allows us to limit our positions and set stop losses. We’re better off trading a little bit of yield for the safety of investing in solid companies that are less volatile than the market as a whole.

Catching a peek our Bulletproof portfolio is risk free if you try today. Access it now by subscribing to Miller's Money Forever, with a 90 day money back guarantee. If you don't like it, simply return the subscription within those first three months and we'll refund your payment, no questions asked. And the knowledge you gain in those months will be yours to keep forever.

The article The Ty Cobb Approach to Retirement Investing was originally published at Millers Money.

Get the complete Premier Trader University webinar schedule