This math formula that can literally predict the market: dxt=θ(μ−xt)dt+σdWt
John Bogle the founder of The Vanguard Group, calls it the iron rule of the financial markets. Jason Zweig from the Wall Street Journal says it’s the most powerful law in finance.
Legendary trader James O'Shaughnessy says that historically, we have always seen it driving stocks. And over the last 8 years it could have paid you well in consistent reliable profits.
Now I’m Going To Show You How It Works ← Click Here
If you trade it with options it could produce rapid two week individual trade profits like....
* 204% on XLU Put Options
* 124% on XLE Call Options
* And even as much as 998% on XLE Put Options
* All in precisely two weeks - no more, no less.
Get The Facts ← Click Here
My trading partner Todd Mitchell has recorded a three video series explaining how it works.
He’s making it available to you now - 100% for FREE.
This series will only be available for a very limited time. If you want to watch…
Visit Here to Check it Out Right Now
See you in the Markets!
Ray C. Parrish
aka the Crude Oil Trader
Showing posts with label investor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label investor. Show all posts
Friday, November 10, 2017
The Iron Rule of the Financial Markets
Labels:
investor,
John Bogle,
oil,
options,
Todd Mitchell,
Trading,
Video,
webinar,
XLE,
XLU
Monday, December 1, 2014
Using Stock Buybacks to Mask Deep Business Problems
By Tony Sagami
Stock buybacks are always a good thing… right? That’s what the mass media has trained investors to believe, but there are times when stock buybacks are a horrible strategy.
Let’s take a look at Herbalife, which has had very visible news items as billionaires like Carl Icahn, George Soros, Daniel Loeb, and Bill Ackman publicly debate the future of the company.
Herbalife shares have lost more than half their value in 2014 because of a Federal Trade Commission investigation and a big drop in profits. 50% is a huge haircut, but I believe Herbalife is poised for even more pain.
Rapidly Disappearing Profits
That’s awful, but Herbalife says business will be even worse going forward. The Wall Street crowd expected Herbalife to grow revenues by 7% in 2015, but the company said that its revenues will fall by -1% to -2% instead.
Part of that lower guidance is from the impact of the strong US dollar. Guidance for Q4 includes an unfavorable impact of $0.31 from currency conversions. If you remember, I previously wrote that the strong dollar was going to kill the 2015 profits of companies that do lots of business overseas.
I have to admit, I am skeptical of all the multilevel marketing businesses, but Herbalife is reinforcing that preconceived notion.
FTC and FBI Investigation
In March, the FTC sent Herbalife a civil investigative demand (CID), which is a subpoena on steroids because all the evidence produced by a CID can be used by other agencies in other investigations, such as the FBI, which is also investigating Herbalife.
The FTC outcome is unknown. Heck, Herbalife could eventually be declared innocent and pure… but I wouldn’t bet on it.
Board Members Gone Bad!
That’s not the only problem with the Herbalife board of directors. Longtime Herbalife Board Member Leroy Barnes announced that he is leaving. Board members leave for legitimate reasons all the time, but Barnes is the fourth Herbalife board member to leave in 2014. Talk about rats jumping the ship!
The Smoke and Mirrors of Stock Buybacks
Example: In Q2, Herbalife spent over $500 million to buy back its own stock for the purpose of propping up its earnings-per-share ratio. Fewer shares translates into higher earnings per share.
The root of the problem is that Herbalife is using up all its cash AND borrowing money like mad to finance the stock buyback.
In the last year, Herbalife’s debt has exploded by over $1 billion. Herbalife is using every penny of operating cash flow and taking on new debt just to buy back its stock.
Moreover, since Herbalife’s stock has plunged by 50% this year, Herbalife wasted hundreds of millions of dollar of shareholder money by buying stock at much higher prices.
And now that revenue, profits, and free cash flow generated by operations are shrinking, Herbalife is on a collision course with insolvency.
Carl Icahn, who is certainly a much better investor than I will ever be, is a big Herbalife fan and even went as far as to call the shares undervalued. “I would tell you I do believe Herbalife is quite undervalued and it is still a good business model.”
Ahhhh… Carl… sorry, but I think you couldn’t be more wrong.
George Soros, by the way, appears to agree with me because he reduced his Herbalife holdings by 60% after the company reported those disastrous third quarter results a few weeks ago. I’m not suggesting that you rush out and buy put options on Herbalife tomorrow morning. As always, timing is everything, but I have very little doubt that Herbalife’s stock will be significantly lower a year from now.
Moreover, the real point isn’t whether Herbalife is headed higher or lower, but that good, old fashioned fundamental research can help you make money in any type of market environment.
Even during bear markets.
30-year market expert Tony Sagami leads the Yield Shark and Rational Bear advisories at Mauldin Economics. To learn more about Yield Shark and how it helps you maximize dividend income, click here.
To learn more about Rational Bear and how you can use it to benefit from falling stocks and sectors, click here.
The article Connecting the Dots: Stock Manipulation 101: Using Stock Buybacks to Mask Deep Business Problems was originally published at mauldin economics
Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!
Labels:
buybacks,
Carl Icahn,
Cash,
Dollar,
FTC,
George Soros,
Herbalife,
investor,
Mauldin Economics,
money,
stock
Sunday, October 5, 2014
Why the Fed Is So Wimpy
By John Mauldin
Another in what seems to be a small parade of scandals involving secretly recorded tapes of Federal Reserve regulators emerged last week. What a number of writers (including me) have written about regulatory capture over the past decade was brought out into the open, at least for a while. My brilliant young friend (40 seems young to me now) Justin Fox, editorial director of the Harvard Business Review and business and economic columnist for Time magazine, published a thoughtful essay this week, outlining some of the issues surrounding the whole concept of banking regulations.
Yes, the latest scandal involved Goldman Sachs, and it took place in the US, but do you really think it’s much different in Europe or Japan? Actually, there are those who argue that it’s worse in those places. This does not bode well for what happens during the next crisis (and there is always a next crisis, hopefully far in the future, though they do seem to come more frequently lately).
Writes Justin:
The point here is that if bank regulators are captives who identify with the interests of the banks they regulate, it is partly by design. This is especially true of the Federal Reserve System, which was created by Congress in 1913 more as a friend to and creature of the banks than as a watchdog. Two-thirds of the board that governs the New York Fed is chosen by local bankers. And while amendments to the Federal Reserve Act in 1933 shifted the balance of power in the Federal Reserve System from the regional Federal Reserve Banks (and the New York Fed in particular) to the political appointees on the Board of Governors in Washington, bank regulation continues to reside at the regional banks. Which means that the bank regulators’ bosses report to a board chosen by … the banks.
I’m in Washington DC today at a conference sponsored by an association of endowments and foundations. They have a rather impressive roster of speakers, so I have found myself attending more sessions than I normally do at conferences. Martin Wolf and David Petraeus headline a very thoughtful group of managers and economists, accompanied by an assortment of geopolitical wizards. I’ve learned a lot.
No follow-on note today. I need to get back to my classroom education….
Your loving the fall weather analyst,
John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box
Outside the Box
Stay Ahead of the Latest Tech News and Investing Trends...
Each day, you get the three tech news stories with the biggest potential impact.Why the Fed Is So Wimpy
By Justin FoxHarvard Business Review HBR Blog Network
September 26, 2014
Regulatory capture – when regulators come to act mainly in the interest of the industries they regulate – is a phenomenon that economists, political scientists, and legal scholars have been writing about for decades. Bank regulators in particular have been depicted as captives for years, and have even taken to describing themselves as such.
Actually witnessing capture in the wild is different, though, and the new This American Life episode with secret recordings of bank examiners at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York going about their jobs is going to focus a lot more attention on the phenomenon. It’s really well done, and you should listen to it, read the transcript, and/or read the story by ProPublica reporter Jake Bernstein.
Still, there is some context that’s inevitably missing, and as a former banking regulation reporter for the American Banker, I feel called to fill some of it in. Much of it has to do with the structure of bank regulation in the U.S., which actually seems designed to encourage capture. But to start, there are a couple of revelations about Goldman Sachs in the story that are treated as smoking guns. One seems to have fired a blank, while the other may be even more explosive than it’s made out to be.
In the first, Carmen Segarra, the former Fed bank examiner who made the tapes, tells of a Goldman Sachs executive saying in a meeting that “once clients were wealthy enough, certain consumer laws didn’t apply to them.” Far from being a shocking admission, this is actually a pretty fair summary of American securities law. According to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s “accredited investor” guidelines, an individual with a net worth of more than $1 million or an income of more than $200,000 is exempt from many of the investor-protection rules that apply to people with less money. That’s why rich people can invest in hedge funds while, for the most part, regular folks can’t. Maybe there were some incriminating details behind the Goldman executive’s statement that alarmed Segarra and were left out of the story, but on the face of it there’s nothing to see here.
The other smoking gun is that Segarra pushed for a tough Fed line on Goldman’s lack of a substantive conflict of interest policy, and was rebuffed by her boss. This is a big deal, and for much more than the legal/compliance reasons discussed in the piece. That’s because, for the past two decades or so, not having a substantive conflict of interest policy has been Goldman’s business model. Representing both sides in mergers, betting alongside and against clients, and exploiting its informational edge wherever possible is simply how the firm makes its money. Forcing it to sharply reduce these conflicts would be potentially devastating.
Maybe, as a matter of policy, the United States government should ban such behavior. But asking bank examiners at the New York Fed to take an action on their own that might torpedo a leading bank’s profits is an awfully tall order. The regulators at the Fed and their counterparts at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation correctly see their main job as ensuring the safety and soundness of the banking system. Over the decades, consumer protections and other rules have been added to their purview, but safety and soundness have remained paramount. Profitable banks are generally safer and sounder than unprofitable ones. So bank regulators are understandably wary of doing anything that might cut into profits.
The point here is that if bank regulators are captives who identify with the interests of the banks they regulate, it is partly by design. This is especially true of the Federal Reserve System, which was created by Congress in 1913 more as a friend to and creature of the banks than as a watchdog. Two-thirds of the board that governs the New York Fed is chosen by local bankers. And while amendments to the Federal Reserve Act in 1933 shifted the balance of power in the Federal Reserve System from the regional Federal Reserve Banks (and the New York Fed in particular) to the political appointees on the Board of Governors in Washington, bank regulation continues to reside at the regional banks. Which means that the bank regulators’ bosses report to a board chosen by … the banks.
Then there’s the fact that Goldman Sachs is a relative newcomer to Federal Reserve supervision – it and rival Morgan Stanley only agreed to become bank holding companies, giving them access to New York Fed loans, at the height of the financial crisis in 2008. While it’s a little hard to imagine Goldman choosing now to rejoin the ranks of mere securities firms, and even harder to see how it could leap to a different banking regulator, it is possible that some Fed examiners are afraid of scaring it away.
All this is meant not to excuse the extreme timidity apparent in the Fed tapes, but to explain why it’s been so hard for the New York Fed to adopt the more aggressive, questioning approach urged by Columbia Business School Professor David Beim in a formerly confidential internal Fed report that This American Life and ProPublica give a lot of play to. Bank regulation springs from much different roots than, say, environmental regulation.
So what is to be done? A lot of the classic regulatory capture literature tends toward the conclusion that we should just give up – shut down the regulators and allow competitive forces to work their magic. That means letting businesses fail. But with banks more than other businesses, failures tend to be contagious. It was to counteract this risk of systemic failure that Congress created the Fed and other bank regulators in the first place, and even if you think that was a big mistake, they’re really not going away.
More recently, there’s been a concerted effort to take a more nuanced view of regulatory capture and how to counteract it. The recent Tobin Project book, Preventing Regulatory Capture: Special Interest Influence and How to Limit It, sums up much of this thinking. While I’ve read parts of it before, I only downloaded the full book an hour ago, so I’m not going to pretend to be able to sum it up here. But here’s a thought – maybe if banking laws and regulations were simpler and more straightforward, the bank examiners at the Fed and elsewhere wouldn’t so often be in the position of making judgment calls that favor the banks they oversee. Then again, the people who write banking laws and regulations are not exactly immune from capture themselves. This won’t be an easy thing to fix.
update: The initial version of this piece listed the Office of Thrift Supervision as one of the nation’s bank regulators. As David Dayen pointed out (and I swear I knew at some point, but had totally forgotten), it was subsumed by the OCC in 2011.
Justin Fox is Executive Editor, New York, of the Harvard Business Review Group and author of The Myth of the Rational Market. Follow him on Twitter @foxjust.
Like Outside the Box?
Sign up today and get each new issue delivered free to your inbox.
It's your opportunity to get the news John Mauldin thinks matters most to your finances.
The article Outside the Box: Why the Fed Is So Wimpy was originally published at Mauldin Economics
Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!
Labels:
Bank,
Europe,
Fed,
Goldman Sachs,
investor,
John Mauldin,
rates,
reserve
Monday, December 23, 2013
Jim Rogers On “Buying Panic” And Investments Nobody Is Talking About
By Nick Giambruno, Senior Editor, International Man
I am very pleased to have had the chance to speak with Jim Rogers, a legendary investor and true international man. Jim and I spoke about some of the most exciting investments and stock markets around the world that pretty much nobody else is talking about. You won't want to miss this fascinating discussion, which you'll find below.Nick Giambruno: Tell us what you think it means to be a successful contrarian and how that relates to investing in crisis markets throughout the world.
Jim Rogers: Well, there are two aspects of it. One is being a trader, being able to buy panic, and nearly always if you are a trader or an investor, if you buy panic, you are going to do okay.
Sometimes it is better for the traders, because when there is a panic, a war breaks out or something like that, everything collapses, and some people are very good at jumping in and buying. Then, when the rally comes, the next day or the next month, they sell out.
Now, the people who are investors can also do that, but it usually takes longer for there to be a permanent rally. In other words, if there's a war and stocks go from 100 to 30 and everybody jumps in, it may rally up to 50, and then the traders will get out, it may go back to 30 again. I'm trying to make the differentiation between investors and traders buying panic.
As an investor, nearly always if you buy panic and you know what you are doing, and then hold on for a number of years, you are going to make a lot of money. You also have to be sure that your crisis or panic is not the end of the world, though. If war breaks out, you have got to make sure it's a temporary war.
I used to work with Roy Neuberger, who was one of the great traders of all time, and whenever stocks would panic down, he was usually one of the few buyers, because he knew he could get a rally—if not that day, at least maybe that week or that month. And he nearly always did. No matter how bad the news, especially if there's a huge drop, it's probably a good time to buy if you've got the staying power and your wits, because you will likely get a rally. In terms of panic buying or crisis situations, that's normally the way to play.
Now, it's not always easy, because you are having everybody you know, or everybody in the media shrieking what a fool you are to even try something like that. But if you have your wits about you and you know what you are doing, and you know enough about yourself, then chances are you will make a lot of money.
Nick Giambruno: What is the story behind your most successful investment in a crisis market or a blood-in-the-streets kind of situation?
Jim Rogers: Certainly commodities at the end of the '90s were everybody's favorite disaster, and yet for whatever reason, I had decided that it was not a disaster. In fact, it was a great opportunity and there were plenty of things to buy. In 1998, for instance, Merrill Lynch, which at the time was the largest broker, certainly in America and maybe the world, decided to close their commodity business, which they had had for a long time. I bought. That's when I started in the commodity business in a fairly big way. So that's the kind of example I am talking about. Everybody had more or less abandoned or were in the process of abandoning commodities, and yet, that's when I decided to go into commodities in a big way, because of what I considered fundamental reasons for doing it, but the fact that Merrill Lynch was getting out buttressed in my own mind anyway that I must be right, because, you know, everybody was out. Who was left to sell? There was nobody left to sell at that point.
Nick Giambruno: What about a particular country?
Jim Rogers: I first invested in China back in 1999 and then again in 2005. The market at those times was very, very bad. I invested again in November of 2008, when all markets around the world were collapsing, including in China. So I have certainly made investments in countries with crisis markets, and I'm getting a little better at it than I used to be, because I have had more experience now. That's why I keep emphasizing that you have to know what you're doing. And by that I mean paying attention to and doing your homework on a stock or a commodity or a country. If you do that with a crisis market, then chances are you can move in and make some money.
Nick Giambruno: In your opinion, which countries today do you think offer the best crisis or "blood in the streets" type opportunities?
Jim Rogers: I think Russia is probably one of the most hated markets in the world. I don't think many people have a nice thing to say about Russia or Putin. I was pessimistic on Russia from 1966 to 2012, that's 46 years. But I've come to the conclusion that since it is so hated, and you should always look at markets that are hated, that there are probably good opportunities in Russia right now.
Nick Giambruno: Doug Casey and I were recently in the crisis-stricken country of Cyprus, which is also a pretty hated market, for obvious reasons. While we were there, we found some pretty remarkable bargains on the Cyprus Stock Exchange which we detailed in a new report called Crisis Investing in Cyprus. Companies that are still producing earnings, paying dividends, have plenty of cash (in most cases outside of the country), little to no debt, and trading for literally pennies on the dollar. What are your thoughts on Cyprus?
Jim Rogers: When I saw what you guys did, I thought, "That's brilliant, I wish I had thought of it, and I'll claim that I thought of it" (laughs). But it was really one of those things where I said, "Oh gosh, why didn't I think of that," because it was so obvious that you are going to find something.
It's also obvious, after what happened in Cyprus, that it's a place where one should investigate. Whether it is right to buy now or not, you are certainly right to look into it. If you stay with it and you know what you are doing, you do your homework, you are probably going to find some astonishing opportunities in Cyprus. It's the kind of thing that I'm talking about and that you are talking about.
(Editor's Note: You can find more info on Crisis Investing in Cyprus here.)
Nick Giambruno: Speaking of hated markets that literally nobody is getting into, I heard that you managed to find a way to get some sort of exposure to North Korea through bullion coins. Could you tell us about that?
Jim Rogers: Yeah, you know, it's illegal for Americans to invest in North Korea. It's probably illegal for us to even say the word "North Korea" (laughs). I look around to see which countries are hated. In North Korea there is no stock market, and there is no way to invest, especially if you are an American, but sometimes you can find something in a secondary market.
Stamps and coins were the only ways I knew of that one could get some sort of exposure. This is because you are not investing in the country, obviously, because you are buying them in a secondary or tertiary market. That said, I think the US government is going to make owning stamps illegal too.
There were people once upon a time—and maybe even now—who invested in North Korean debt. I have not done that, but it may be another way that people can invest in North Korea. I don't even know if North Korean debt still trades, but it was defaulted on at some point.
Nick Giambruno: Another hated market that actually does have a pretty vibrant and dynamic stock market is the Tehran Stock Exchange in Iran. Have you ever taken a look at this market?
Jim Rogers: Yes, at one point I did invest in Iran, back in the 1990s and made something like 40 times on my money. I didn't put millions in because there was a limit on how much a person could invest. But this was over 20 years ago. I would like to invest in Iran again, but I don't know the precise details on the sanctions and the current status of Americans being able to invest there. But Iran is certainly on my list. And so are Libya and Syria. I'm not doing anything at the moment in these countries, but they are places that are on my list.
Nick Giambruno: Switching gears a little, do you have any final words for people who are thinking about internationalizing some aspect of their lives or their savings?
Jim Rogers: Most people have a health insurance policy, a life insurance policy, fire insurance, and car insurance. You hope that you never have to use these insurance policies, but you have them anyway. I feel the same way about what you call internationalizing, but I call it insurance. Everybody should have some of their money invested outside of their own country, outside of their own currency. No matter how positive things are in your home country, something could go wrong.
I obviously do it for many other reasons than that. I do it because I think I can make some money finding opportunities outside your own country. Many people are a little reluctant, you know. It's tough to leave your safe haven. So I try to explain to them, "Well, you have fire insurance, why don't you look on investing abroad as another kind of insurance?" and usually what happens is people get more accustomed to it. And they often invest more and more abroad because they say, "Oh, my gosh, look at these opportunities. Why didn't somebody tell us there are all these things out there?"
Nick Giambruno: Jim, would you like to tell us about your most recent book, Street Smarts: Adventures on the Road and in the Markets? I'd strongly encourage our readers to check it out by clicking here.
Jim Rogers: I've done a few books before, and then my publisher and agent said, "Look, it sounds like it must be quite a story to have come from the back woods of Alabama to living in Asia with a couple of blue-eyed girls who speak perfect Mandarin. How did this happen? Why don't you pull this all together and it might be an interesting story?" So I did, somewhat reluctantly at first, and then, lo and behold, people tell me it's my best book. Whether it is or not, I will have to let other people decide, but that's how it happened, and that's what it is.
Nick Giambruno: Jim, thank you for your time and unique insight into these fascinating topics.
Jim Rogers: You're welcome. Let's do it again sometime.
Get our "Gold and Crude Oil Trade Ideas"
Labels:
casey research,
collapses,
commodities,
Crude Oil,
insurance,
investor,
Iran,
Jim Rogers,
Libya,
Nick Giabruno,
Syria
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
How to beat the market makers at their own game
2013 will be remembered as the year the retail investor was introduced to the world of trading options. And our readers have been lucky enough to follow our trading partner John Carter of Simpler Options as he teaches us how to successfully trade options using his "unique weekly model".
A couple of times a year John is willing to produce a new video and bring us his latest take on trading options including showing us his recent trades from his personal account. What do you need to do to understand this system?
Just click here to watch his new video!
Here's what you'll be learning......
* How he has made $650,000 this year beating the market makers at their own game
* The Dirty Little Secret of Weekly Options
* Why weekly options are his favorite way to trade options
* The account size you need to trade weekly options....[Here's a hint...any size]
* Your goal as an options trader
* And so much more...
Watch the video and please feel free to leave a comment and tell us what you think about the video and what you think about using his weekly options trading model.
Ray's Stock World
Watch "What Wall Street Doesn't Want You to Know about Trading Options"
A couple of times a year John is willing to produce a new video and bring us his latest take on trading options including showing us his recent trades from his personal account. What do you need to do to understand this system?
Just click here to watch his new video!
Here's what you'll be learning......
* How he has made $650,000 this year beating the market makers at their own game
* The Dirty Little Secret of Weekly Options
* Why weekly options are his favorite way to trade options
* The account size you need to trade weekly options....[Here's a hint...any size]
* Your goal as an options trader
* And so much more...
Ray's Stock World
Watch "What Wall Street Doesn't Want You to Know about Trading Options"
Labels:
2013,
investor,
John Carter,
options,
Ray's Stock World,
retail,
Simpler Options,
Stocks,
trade,
Video,
webinar
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
Are Your Bullish Calls Plagued with Divergences?
By now everyone has a prediction about where the S&P 500 Index (SPX) is going to be heading in the future. Most of the sell side and their ilk are all rolling out the green bullish carpet and predicting that a major bull run is right around the corner.
If you are a contrarian investor by nature and tend to sell when others are buying this will be of great interest to you. When retail investors are buying and the professional sell side is quickly reducing their long equity exposure we get increasingly more bearish.
This recent report was accompanied by some eye opening charts......
View report and charts courtesy of Bank of America Merrill Lynch
Get our FREE Trading Webinars Today!
If you are a contrarian investor by nature and tend to sell when others are buying this will be of great interest to you. When retail investors are buying and the professional sell side is quickly reducing their long equity exposure we get increasingly more bearish.
This recent report was accompanied by some eye opening charts......
View report and charts courtesy of Bank of America Merrill Lynch
Get our FREE Trading Webinars Today!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)


