Tag Archives: earnings-center

Stocks That Can Double, Can Give You Trouble

Summary Every day, around 45 stocks double or more in price. That may be true, but most of those that do double or more in price don’t do so for fundamental reasons; they are often manipulated. Second, the stocks that do double in price can’t be found in advance – i.e., picking the day that the price will explode. Third, the prices more often fall hard for these tiny stocks. Fourth, for the few that rise a lot, you can’t invest in them. I haven’t written about promoted penny stocks in a long time . Tonight, I am not writing about promoted stocks, only penny stocks as promoted by a newsletter writer . He profits from the newsletter. Ostensibly, he does not front-run his readers. Before we go on, let me run the promoted stocks scoreboard: Ticker Date of Article Price @ Article Price @ 12/1/15 Decline Annualized Dead? ( OTCPK:GTXO ) 5/27/2008 2.45 0.011 -99.6% -51.5% ( OTCPK:BONZ ) 10/22/2009 0.35 0.000 -99.9% -68.5% ( OTCPK:BONU ) 10/22/2009 0.89 0.000 -100.0% -100.0% ( OTC:UTOG ) 3/30/2011 1.55 0.000 -100.0% -100.0% Dead (OBJE) 4/29/2011 116.00 0.000 -100.0% -100.0% Dead ( OTCPK:LSTG ) 10/5/2011 1.12 0.004 -99.6% -74.2% ( OTC:AERN ) 10/5/2011 0.0770 0.0001 -99.9% -79.8% ( OTC:IRYS ) 3/15/2012 0.261 0.000 -100.0% -100.0% Dead ( OTCPK:RCGP ) 3/22/2012 1.47 0.180 -87.8% -43.4% ( OTCQB:STVF ) 3/28/2012 3.24 0.070 -97.8% -64.7% ( OTCPK:CRCL ) 5/1/2012 2.22 0.001 -99.9% -87.2% ( OTCPK:ORYN ) 5/30/2012 0.93 0.001 -99.9% -85.4% ( OTCQB:BRFH ) 5/30/2012 1.16 1.000 -13.8% -4.1% ( OTCPK:LUXR ) 6/12/2012 1.59 0.002 -99.9% -86.3% ( OTCQB:IMSC ) 7/9/2012 1.5 0.495 -67.0% -27.9% ( OTCPK:DIDG ) 7/18/2012 0.65 0.000 -100.0% -100.0% ( OTCQB:GRPH ) 11/30/2012 0.8715 0.013 -98.5% -75.4% ( OTCPK:IMNG ) 12/4/2012 0.76 0.012 -98.4% -75.0% ( OTCPK:ECAU ) 1/24/2013 1.42 0.000 -100.0% -94.9% ( OTCPK:DPHS ) 6/3/2013 0.59 0.005 -99.2% -85.5% ( OTC:POLR ) 6/10/2013 5.75 0.005 -99.9% -94.2% ( OTC:NORX ) 6/11/2013 0.91 0.000 -100.0% -97.5% ( OTCQB:ARTH ) 7/11/2013 1.24 0.245 -80.2% -49.3% ( OTCPK:NAMG ) 7/25/2013 0.85 0.000 -100.0% -100.0% ( OTCPK:MDDD ) 12/9/2013 0.79 0.003 -99.7% -94.5% ( OTCPK:TGRO ) 12/30/2013 1.2 0.012 -99.0% -90.9% ( OTCQB:VEND ) 2/4/2014 4.34 0.200 -95.4% -81.6% (HTPG) 3/18/2014 0.72 0.003 -99.6% -95.9% ( OTCQB:WSTI ) 6/27/2014 1.35 0.000 -100.0% -99.9% (APPG) 8/1/2014 1.52 0.000 -100.0% -99.8% (CDNL) 1/20/2015 0.35 0.035 -90.0% -93.1% 12/1/2015 Median -99.9% -87.2% If you want to lose money, it is hard to do it more consistently than this. No winners out of 31, and only one company looks legit at all – Barfresh ( OTCQB:BRFH ). But what of the newsletter writer? He seems to have a couple of stylized facts that are misapplied. Every day, around 45 stocks double or more in price. Some wealthy investors have bought stocks like these. Wall Street firms own these stocks but never recommend them to ordinary individuals The media censors price information about these stocks so you never hear about them Every day, around 45 stocks double or more in price. That may be true, but most of those that do double or more in price don’t do so for fundamental reasons; they are often manipulated. Second, the stocks that do double in price can’t be found in advance – i.e., picking the day that the price will explode. Third, the prices more often fall hard for these tiny stocks. Of the 30 stocks mentioned above that were not dead at the time of the last article, 10 fell more than 90% over the 10+ month period. 13 fell less than 90%, 1 broke even, and 7 rose in price. The median stock fell 61%. This was during a bull market. Now you might say, “Wait, these are promoted stocks, of course they fell.” Only the last one was being actively promoted, so that’s not the answer. My fourth point is for the few that rise a lot, you can’t invest in them. The stocks that double or more in a day tend to be the smallest of the stocks. Two of the 30 stocks listed in the scoreboard rose 900% and 7100% in the 10+ month period since my last article. How much could you have invested in those stocks? You could have bought both companies for a little more than $10,000 each. Anyone waving even a couple hundred bucks could make either stock fly. So, no, these stocks aren’t a road to riches. Now the ad has stories as to how much money people made at some point buying the penny stocks. The odds of stringing several of these successful purchases in succession, parlaying the money into bigger and bigger stocks that double is remote at best, and your odds of losing a lot of it is high. This idea is a less classy version of the idea promoted in the book 100 to 1 in the Stock Market . If it is difficult to find the 100-baggers 30 years in advance, it is more difficult to find a stock that is going to double or more tomorrow, much less a bunch of them in succession. You may as well go to Vegas and bet it all on Double Zero on the roulette wheel four times in a row. The odds are about that bad, as trying to get rich buying penny stocks. The ad also lists three stock that at some point fit his paradigm – MeetMe (NASDAQ: MEET ), PlasmaTech Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (PTBI), which is now called Abeona Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ: ABEO ), and Organovo (NYSEMKT: ONVO ). All of these are money-losing companies (MeetMe may be breaking into profitability now) that have survived by selling shares to raise cash. The stocks have generally been poor. Have they had volatile days where the price doubled? At some point, probably, but who could have picked the date in advance, and found liquidity to do a quick in-and-out trade? The author lists five future situations as a “come on” to get people to subscribe. I find them dubious. As for wealthy investors, he mentions two: Icahn pulling of a short squeeze on Voltari (difficult to generalize from), and Soros with PlasmaTech Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. It should be noted that Soros has a big portfolio with many stocks, and that position was far less than 1% of his assets. In general, the wealthy do not buy penny stocks. As for brokers and the media not mentioning penny stocks, that is being responsible. The brokers could get in hot water for recommending or buying penny stocks even under a weak suitability standard. The media also does not want to be blamed for inciting destructive speculation. Retail investors lose enough money through uninformed trading, why encourage them to do it where fundamentals are typically quite poor. I’ve written two other pieces on less liquid stocks to try to explain the market better: On Penny Stocks and Good Over-the-Counter “Pink” Stocks . It’s not as if there isn’t value in some of the stocks that “fly under the radar.” That said, you have to be extra careful. Near the end of the ad, the writer describes how he is being extra careful also. Many of his rules make a lot of sense. That said, following those rules will get you boring companies that won’t double or more in a day. And that’s not a bad thing. Most significant money is made slowly – it doesn’t come in a year, much less in a day. That said, I recommend against the newsletter because of the way that it tries to attract people. The rhetoric is over the top, and appeals to those who sense conspiracies keeping them from riches, so join my club where I hand out my secret knowledge so you can benefit. In summary, as a first approximation, don’t invest in penny stocks. The odds are against you. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. Don’t let greed get the better of you – after all, what is being illustrated is an illusion that retail investors can’t generally achieve. Disclosure: None

There Is No Defense Of Closet Indexing

Closet indexing occurs when a high-fee mutual fund or ETF promises to be able to “beat the market”, charges a fee premium relative to its benchmark and then largely mimics the performance of the benchmark. This is a tremendous problem for investors, because they usually end up paying hefty fees in exchange for empty promises. When I review client portfolios, I find that an alarmingly high number of them hold closet index funds (before I release these demons into the netherworld). I bring this up in response to a piece today on Morningstar titled ” In Defense of Closet Indexers “. The subtitle is “They are no worse (or better) than other forms of active management”. There are two issues here I’d like to highlight: The false dichotomy of “passive” versus “active” creates confusion from the start. The financial industry seems very confused on this subject, thanks to unclear academic literature on the topic. We tend to assign the term “active” to funds that are literally more active. By this definition, Warren Buffett is a “passive” investor, because he doesn’t often change his portfolio. This is obviously ludicrous. The correct definition of passive is a strategy that tries to capture the market return, versus the active investor who tries to be able to beat the market return. But since we all deviate from global cap weighting (the one true benchmark of outstanding financial assets), we are all active investors. In a world of low-fee indexing, this distinction has become increasingly muddled by market commentators. The Morningstar article defends high-fee active management based on a false dichotomy. This debate is not about “active” and “passive”, it is about the efficiency in which we are active. The core of the defense in the article is the fact that four of American Funds’ U.S. stock funds have bested the S&P 500 over the last 15 years. This is true, but none of them have bested the S&P on an after-tax and fee basis in the last 1, 3, 5 or 10 years. In fact, many of those funds have dramatically underperformed after taxes and fees over these periods, as you can see in the figure below (I wasn’t sure which funds he was referencing, but the following six funds are US equity-heavy). So yes, if you had the foresight 15 years ago to pick those funds, then you “beat” the S&P 500, but if you were an investor who bought one of these funds at any time in the last decade, you bought a fund that gave you 95% of the S&P 500 correlation with a lower after-tax and fee return. And given the propensity for investors to chase returns, it’s almost certain that the vast majority of the people who own these funds have not captured that 15-year outperformance. In other words, most of the investors in these funds have invested in a closet index and not benefited from it. (click to enlarge) In general, I agree with the cited academic paper referring to closet index funds as a “gigantic mis-selling phenomenon”. I don’t think we should ban these funds, as the paper asserts, but I do think we need to properly assess this problem so investors can make better-informed decisions. We still siphon way too many billions of dollars into investment firm coffers for no good reason. That’s money that is directly harming your retirement and livelihood. There is no practical defense of this.

December Update – ETFReplay.com Portfolio

The ETFReplay.com Portfolio holdings have been updated for December 2015. I previously detailed here and here how an investor can use ETFReplay.com to screen for best performing ETFs based on momentum and volatility. The portfolio begins with a static basket of 14 ETFs. These 14 ETFs are ranked by 6-month total returns (weighted 40%), 3-month total returns (weighted 30%), and 3-month price volatility (weighted 30%). The top 4 are purchased at the beginning of each month. When a holding drops out of the top 5 ETFs, it will be sold and replaced with the next highest ranked ETF. The 14 ETFs are listed below: Symbol Name RWX SPDR DJ International Real Estate PCY PowerShares Emerging Mkts Bond WIP SPDR Int’l Govt Infl-Protect Bond EFA iShares MSCI EAFE HYG iShares iBoxx High-Yield Corp Bond EEM iShares MSCI Emerging Markets LQD iShares iBoxx Invest Grade Bond VNQ Vanguard MSCI U.S. REIT TIP iShares Barclays TIPS VTI Vanguard MSCI Total U.S. Stock Market DBC PowerShares DB Commodity Index GLD SPDR Gold Shares TLT iShares Barclays Long-Term Trsry SHY iShares Barclays 1-3 Year Treasry Bnd Fd In addition, ETFs must be ranked above the cash-like ETF (NYSEARCA: SHY ) in order to be included in the portfolio, similar to the absolute momentum strategy I profiled here . This modification could help reduce drawdowns during periods of high volatility and/or negative market conditions (see 2008-2009), but it could also reduce total returns by allocating to cash in lieu of an asset class. The cash filter had been in effect since July 2015, but this month four new positions will be added. The top 5 ranked ETFs based on the 6/3/3 system as of 11/30/15 are below: 6mo/3mo/3mo PCY PowerShares Emerging Mkts Bond VNQ Vanguard MSCI U.S. REIT LQD iShares iBoxx Invest Grade Bond TLT iShares Barclays Long-Term Trsry SHY Barclays Low Duration Treasury (2-yr) Thus, the portfolio will purchase PCY, VNQ, LQD, and TLT. In 2014, I introduced a pure momentum system, which ranks the same basket of 14 ETFs based solely on 6-month price momentum. There is no cash filter in the pure momentum system, volatility ranking, or requirement to limit turnover – the top 4 ETFs based on price momentum are purchased each month. The portfolio and rankings are posted on the same spreadsheet as the 6/3/3 strategy. The top 4 six-month momentum ETFs are below: 6-month Momentum TLT iShares Barclays Long-Term Trsry VNQ Vanguard MSCI U.S. REIT PCY PowerShares Emerging Mkts Bond LQD iShares iBoxx Invest Grade Bond This month SHY will be sold and the proceeds used to purchase LQD. The updated holdings for the pure momentum portfolio is below: Position Purchase Price Purchase Date Percentage Gain/Loss Excluding Dividends PCY 27.65 8/31/2015 0.94% LQD 115.91 11/30/2015 0.00% VNQ 79.89 10/30/2015 -0.63% TLT 122.74 10/30/2015 -1.05% Disclosure: None