Showing posts with label investor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label investor. Show all posts

Monday, April 13, 2020

We Adjusted Our Retirement Account Positions with This Major Signal Issued - Did You Get The Signal?

Our trading partner Chris Vermeulen, who are readers have followed for a while now, is loving what is happening in the markets for the last three weeks. He wants a big bounce here because it is going to set us up with a huge long-term investment position once price confirms this next entry signal.

Last week Chris issued a trade alert to members of his long-term investing newsletter. This allows you to protect your wealth and assets while continuing to take advantage of opportunities generated by the U.S and global markets over the next several months and possibly into next year. This is the first trade alert issued in 2020 of this kind, and he may have another very soon, but it's not too late to take advantage of the first signal.

If you are a trader or investor, with a retirement account of any type, or have assets in the stock market, then you need to take action and sign up to get these important investment trade signals.

We all have trading accounts, and while our trading accounts are important, what is even more important are our long-term investment and retirement accounts. Why? Because they are, in most cases, our largest store of wealth other than our homes.

If they are not protected during a time like this, you could lose another 25-50% or more of your entire net worth. The good news is we can preserve and even grow out long term capital when things get ugly like they are now and Chris shows us how.

Check It Out Here

Sincerely,

Chris Vermeulen
Founder of The Technical Traders



Stock & ETF Trading Signals

Monday, November 18, 2019

When Crude Oil Collapses Below $40 What Happens - Part III

This, the final section of this multi-part research article, will continue our exploration of the consequences that may result from our ADL predictive modeling system’s suggestion that Oil may continue to fall to levels below $40 over the next few months.

In Part I and Part II, we’ve highlighted what we believe to be very compelling evidence that any continue oil price decline from current levels may be setting up the global markets for a massively volatile price reversion – similar to what happened in 1929.

Prior to the stock market collapse in 1929 and the start of the Great Depression, commodity prices collapsed in 1921 and again in 1930. This commodity price collapse was the result of over-supply and a dramatic change in investor mentality. The shift away from tangible items and real successful investing/manufacturing and towards speculation in the housing markets and stock market.

Today, we want to focus on some of the core elements of our current global economic structure to attempt to present any more compelling evidence of a commodity collapse event that may happen after the past 7+ years of a massive credit market expansion event. Allow us to briefly cover the events of the past 20 years.

You can get my daily market analysis articles and trade ideas by opting into my free market trend signals newsletter.

1999: the DOT COM bubble burst after a mild recession in 1993-94 and a stock market rally from 1996 to 1999

September 11, 2001: Terrorist Attack on US soil. Shocked the world and global stock markets. Sent the world’s economy into severe contraction. US Fed lowered interest rates from 6.25% to 1.0% from 2001 to 2003.

2004-06: US Fed begins raising rates from 1.0% and gradually increased rates to 5.25% in August 2006: +525%. Pushing the US credit market, and housing market, over the edge and starting the 2008 Credit Crisis.

2007-2008: US Fed lowered interest rates to near ZERO over a very short 16-month span of time as the US Credit Crisis event unfolded.

2009-15: US Fed continued to keep interest rates near zero throughout this time-frame and continued to pump capital in the global capital markets with multiple QE and debt buying events. Other global central banks followed the US lead providing additional capital throughout the global markets. This massive expansion of credit/debt over a 7+ year span of time allowed foreign nations to “binge” on cheap US and Euro credit/debt while an Emerging Market and Foreign Market recovery were taking place.

2016-2019: US Fed raised interest rates from 0.08% to 2.42% over this span of time. Pushing US Fed rates up by the highest percentage levels EVER: +3025%

This continued global cycle of “boom and bust” has wreaked havoc on global consumers and business enterprises. Over the past 20+ years, various cycles of economic appreciation and depreciation have left some people considerably better suited to deal with these cycles while others have been completely destroyed by these events. Now, it appears we are entering another period of “early warning” as global manufacturing activity, growth and economic output appears to be waning. Are we entering another period like the 1929 to 1940 period of the US where a global economic contraction resulted in a deeper economic recession/depression and took 15+ years to recover from?

The US Fed has recently started acquiring assets again – at a far greater rate than at any time since 2012. It is very likely that the US Fed is “front-running” a crisis event that is already starting to unravel again – possibly aligned with institutional banking entities and global credit/debt risks.

(Source: https://wolfstreet.com)

Chinese factory orders have continued to fall recently and the news is starting to trickle out of China that the US trade tariffs have done far greater damage than currently expected. This suggests that manufacturing, exports, and GDP for China have entered a massive decline. What happens next is that commodity prices collapse because of the lack of demand from manufacturers and consumers. (Source: https://www.yahoo.com/finance/) Chinese new loan origination rates have fallen to a 22 month “new low” – which suggests corporate and consumer borrowers are simply not willing to take on any new debt/credit at the moment. This happens when a population decides they want to “disconnect” from any economic risks and shift towards a “protectionist” process. (Source: https://finance.yahoo.com)

Recent news suggests that Chinese demand for European consumer and luxury goods has also contracted dramatically. Germany will release GDP estimates on November 14th. It is our opinion that the Chinese have already shifted into a more protectionist consumer stance and that would mean that demand for non-essential items (call them high-risk purchases) are very low at this time. If this is the case, the lack of true demand origination out of China/Asia could push much of Europe into a recession. (Source: https://www.yahoo.com/)

The last thing China would want right now is to blow the potential for any type of US/China trade deal – even if it means giving up more than they may have considered many months ago. More tariffs or any type of tit-for-tat retaliatory trade war would not be in the best interest of either party at this stage of the game. Who flinches first? The US, or China, or the rest of the world?

So, the question, again, becomes...“will a commodity collapse lead the global stock market into a prolonged period of price decline and/or a global recession over the next 10+ years?”

If so, can we expect commodities to collapse as they did after the 1929 stock market peak?

You may remember this chart from the earlier sections of this multi-part article. It highlights what happened leading up to the 1929 stock market crash and how early warning signs of manufacturing and agriculture weakness continued to plague the markets while speculation in housing and the stock market pushed certain asset values much higher near the end of the “Roaring 20s”.



Are we setting up for the same type of event right now where global trade, manufacturing, and agriculture are weakening after the 2008 Credit Crisis and we are meandering towards a repetition of the events that led to the “Great Depression”? Will commodities prices collapse to 2002 or 2003 levels for most items? Will Oil collapse to levels below $30 ppb over the next 6 to 12+ months? And what will happen to Gold and Silver throughout this time?



Can we navigate through these troubling events without risking some type of new collapse event or reversion event? Are the central banks prepared for this? Are traders/investors prepared for this? Just how close are we to the start of this type of event?

The answers lie in what we do now and how the commodities react over the next 12+ months. The one major difference between now and 1929 is that the world is far more inter-connected economically and there are more people throughout the world that have moved into the “economic class”. Thus, it is our opinion that any event that is likely to happen will be followed by a moderately strong recovery event – no matter how severe the outcome. The world is in a different place right now compared to 1929. Overall, only time will tell if our research and ADL predictive modeling system is accurate with respect to future oil prices.

We believe it is critical for all traders to understand what lies ahead and the risks involved in “playing dumb” about the current market environment. We recently authored an article titled “Welcome to the Zombie-land for investors” and highly suggest you read it. Our researchers will share this one component that should help to ease some of the stress you may be feeling right now – the most capable, secure, mature and best funded (reserves) economies on the planet will likely lead any recovery process should an event as this happen. Therefore, look for strengths in the most mature and capable economies on the planet if some new crisis event begins.

Even if a trade deal between the US and China were to happen today and eliminate all trade tariffs, would this change anything or would this simply pour fuel onto the “capital shift” fire that is already taking place with speculation reaching frothy levels?

If you want to earn 34%-50% a year return on your trading account with very few ETF trades then join us at the Wealth Building Newsletter today!


The Technical Traders



Stock & ETF Trading Signals

Tuesday, November 7, 2017

The Iron Rule of the Financial Markets

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!
The Stock Market Club





Tuesday, December 6, 2016

How to Use the New Market Manipulation to Your Advantage

It's time for another one of Don Kaufman's wildly popular webinars. Don’t miss this live online seminar, How to Use the New Market Manipulation to Your Advantage, with Don Kaufman this Tuesday December 6th. at 8:00 PM New York, 7:00 PM Central or 5:00 PM Pacific.

During this free webinar you will learn:
  • How scarcely used recent additions in market structure have forever changed how we view price movement and volatility.
  • What weekly strategy you can use to take minimal risk and produce astonishing returns surrounding predictable or manipulated movements in any stock, ETF, or index.
  • The one product that has become statistically significant in determining the next market move so whether you're a long term investor, swing trader, or intra-day trader you can get tuned into what's driving today's marketplace.
  • How you can use market efficiency to your advantage in all aspects of your investments, retirement accounts, stock and options trading accounts, futures trading and more.
  • How you can trade up to several times per week without having to continually monitor your positions, "set it and forget it" with this low risk high reward trade.
      Don's Webinars have an attendance limit that we always hit. This one will be no exception.

      Visit Here to Register Now!

      See you Tuesday night!
      The Stock Market Club




Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Steve Swanson Shows Us How to Trade This Volatile Market


Steve Swanson's 4D technology [which you'll read about in a minute] predicted everything about January's sell off and subsequent rally way back in December. If you want to know the future too, just click on the video link below. An up to date chart of the S&P 500 Price/Time Continuum is posted below the video. See for yourself the precise day the next big rally will begin then use the profit magnifier detailed in this free eBook to earn 3 times more profits.

A revolutionary profit magnifier quietly introduced in November 2008 had the power to essentially change the fate of millions of beleaguered investors. Yet, to this day hardly anybody knows about it.  Do you? In his highly acclaimed new book, Steve Swanson [the brilliant trader and inventor who predicted every intermediate market top and bottom for more than two decades] reveals a safe and easy way for you to utilize the powerful Thanksgiving gift of 2008 to earn 3 times more money on every trade.  


This is something you really deserve to know about. And you can download his tell all new ebook this week for free. Just for starters, see how you can take that profit and triple it! See how this one simple change can earn you 3 times more money I was shocked. And I think you will be too when you see how ridiculously simple it is to make one minor change. Easy for anybody. And turn a boring 25% a year strategy into an exciting moneymaker that averages 108% a year with no compounding!

And that’s not all. When you download your FREE eBook, you’ll also gain instant access to Steve’s paradigm shifting video 

Steve Swanson actually invented a program that plots every intermediate market high and low. Past, present, and future on what’s called the “Price Time Continuum”. That’s how he’s been able to predict and profit from every market turning point for more than 2 decades. Some are calling Swanson’s 4th Dimension breakthrough the “Discovery of the Century”.  

So you might want to at least take a peek.  Click Here Now.

See you in the markets,
The Stock Market Club

P.S. As with most free things, Steve Swanson’s generous offer is limited.  So, even if you don’t have time to delve into anything new right now, I’d encourage you to grab your free ebook while you can.  That way you’ll have it to look through whenever you like. Click Here Now.



Stock & ETF Trading Signals

Monday, September 21, 2015

Jim Rogers on Timeless Investing Strategies You Can Use to Profit Today

By Nick Giambruno

Recently I spoke with Jim Rogers about the most important investment lessons he has learned over the years.
Jim is a legendary investor and true international man. He’s always ahead of the game. Jim made a bundle by investing in commodities in the 1990s when they were out of favor with Wall Street. He’s also made large profits investing in crisis markets.

Jim and I spoke about timeless strategies that are truly essential to being a successful investor.
You won’t want to miss this fascinating discussion, which you’ll find below.



Nick Giambruno: You’ve said that many times throughout history, conventional wisdom gets shattered. What are some widely held beliefs that will be shattered in the next 10 years?

Jim Rogers: That’s a very good question. Well, for one thing, I know bond markets are at all-time highs almost in every country in the world. Interest rates have never been so low. Everybody is convinced that bonds are a good thing to invest in. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be at all time highs.

I’m sure that 10 years from now, we are all going to look back and say, how could people have even been investing in bonds with negative yields? How could that possibly have been happening? But at the moment, everybody assumes it’s okay, and it’s the normal and natural thing to do. Ten years from now, we’re going to look back and say, gosh, how could we ever have done something so foolish?

So one of the things I do is I look to see - when everybody’s convinced that X is correct - I look to see, well maybe X isn’t correct. So when I find unanimity of a view, I look to see, maybe it’s not right. And it usually isn’t right, by the way. I have learned that from experiences and from lots of reading.

Nick: How does an investor deal with being accurate but early?

Jim: Oh, that’s the story of my life. I’ve always been accurate but early. If I’m convinced something is going to happen or if I should make an investment, I have learned that I should wait for awhile, because maybe it is too early. And it usually is too early.

I try to discipline myself to wait longer or to put in orders below the market and let the market come to me. But even then, sometimes I’m still too early.

Nick: How did studying history help you in investing?

Jim: Well, the main thing it taught me was that everything is always changing. If you go back and look at before the First World War, nobody could ever have conceived in 1910 that Germany and Britain would be slaughtering millions of people four years later. Yet it happened.

No matter what we think today, no matter what it is, it is not going to be true in 15 years. I assure you. You pick any year in history, and look at what everybody was convinced was correct and then look 15 years later, and you’d be shocked and astonished. Look at 1920, 15 years later. Look at 1930, 15 years later.

Any year you want to pick - 1900, 1990, 2000. Pick any year and I assure you, 15 years later everything is going to be different. I guess that’s the first thing I learned from the study of history.

Nick: What mistakes do empires always make?

Jim: They get overextended. They think they’re smarter than everybody else. They think they cannot make mistakes, and even if they are making mistakes they are so powerful they think that they can correct the mistakes. And then they become overextended. Usually they become overextended financially, militarily, geopolitically, in every way.

Nick: Is the US repeating those same mistakes?

Jim: Well, the US is the largest debtor nation in the history of the world now, and the debts are going higher and higher. The people in the US think it doesn’t matter that we’ve got all these debts and there’s no problem. People in the US don’t think that it’s a problem that we’ve got troops in over 100 countries around the world. I mean, when Rome got overextended militarily, it paid the price. Spain and many other countries have had this problem. Maybe it’s not a problem. Maybe America can have troops in 200 countries around the world and it won’t matter, but America has certainly gotten itself overextended in many ways.

Nick: Do you think wealth and power will continue to move East?

Jim: Wealth and power are moving East now, and that is going to continue. That’s because of historic reasons. There’s little doubt in my mind that China is going to be the next great country in the world. Most people are still skeptical of that. Most people know something is happening in China. They don’t really quite understand the full historic significance of what is happening in China including many Chinese.

Jim Rogers and Nick Giambruno

Nick: You mentioned in your most recent book, Street Smarts, about the lesson you learned when Nixon closed the gold window in 1971. At the time you were long Japan and short the US, and you just got killed. Can you tell us the lessons you learned from that experience?

Jim: That was a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Even if you have it right, or you think you have it right, something can always come along and change that, especially with politicians.

Politicians play by different rules from the rest of us. They just change the rules. Mr. Nixon just changed the rules because he was having a serious problem, and he thought America was having a serious problem. And when they changed the rules against all logic or against history, something is going to give. If you are on the wrong side, you are the one who is going to give, and I’ve learned that.

Nick: Any other investing lessons you’d like to mention?

Jim: Well, when you see on the front page of the newspaper that there’s a disaster - natural disaster, economic, any kind of a disaster - just pick up the newspaper and think, now wait a minute, everybody’s panicked right now. The blasting headlines are that the world is coming to an end. Stop and think, is the world really coming to an end? Is this industry going to survive? Is this country going to survive? Is this market going to survive? Because normally it is going to survive.

If you can just first stop and have that thought process, then you can think it through. Let’s say that these headlines are wrong. “What should I do?” You are probably going to be a successful investor. Be prepared for the fact that you are probably going to be early. If you can figure out how to spot the exact bottom and the exact turn, please call me.

Nick: This is exactly what Doug Casey and I do in our Crisis Speculator publication (click here for more details). Shifting gears now, you’ve also said that Harvard and other universities could go bankrupt. Why do you think that?

Jim: Well, first of all, some of the American universities have a very, very high cost structure. It’s astonishing.
Let’s pick on Ivy League. I went to an Ivy League school, so I can pick on them a little bit. They have a high cost structure. They think that what they know is correct and that people will always pay higher and higher prices.

To go to Princeton for four years now is probably going to cost you $300,000 in the end when you figure out the tuition, room and board, books, beer, travel, and everything else. It’s extraordinarily expensive to go to these places. Now what Princeton would tell you - and I didn’t go to Princeton but that’s why I’m picking on them - what Princeton would say is, yeah, but it’s better education. But I’m not sure it’s better education.

I know that many of the things that they teach in Ivy League schools these days are absurd and totally wrong. It’s conventional wisdom run amuck, so it’s not necessarily better what you learn at those places. If you go to the right universities, and you learn the wrong things, it’s going to cost you in the end.

Then they say, yes, but it’s a brand, it’s a label that’s good. Sure, it’s a label, it’s a very expensive label, but it’s going to take a lot more than that to make you successful. Just because your grandmother gives you a Cadillac, which is a good brand, it’s not going to make you successful at finding dates, or having a good job or anything else. You have to produce on your own.

Throughout history you've had many institutions that have been world famous and top of the line. They’ve disappeared. It doesn’t mean Harvard can’t too. I didn’t go to Harvard, so I shouldn’t pick on any of these places that I didn’t go to. So we’ll see. I’m skeptical of all of them.

Nick: Why do universities and governments embrace Keynesian economics? Why do they hate Austrian economics?

Jim: That’s a good question. Keynes himself, at the end, didn’t embrace what is now known as Keynesian economics. Keynes would probably be an Austrian now, because at the end of his life, he came to understand that some of the stuff was being misused.

The main reason people like Keynesian economics is because they think they can be powerful. They can change things. “I’m a smart guy. I went to an Ivy League school, therefore I know what’s best.

And if I say it’s best, let’s do it, and it will make things better.” That’s essentially what Keynesianism is now. The market is a lot smarter than all of us, and I wish we would all learn that. It always has been and it always will be.

Nick: Thanks for your time, Jim.

Jim: My pleasure.

Editor’s Note: Jim Rogers told us about the importance of looking past the news that frightens others away. It’s the key to finding deep value investment opportunities that can make you enormous profits. It’s one of the world’s greatest wealth creation secrets.

It’s been used by Warren Buffett, Doug Casey, John Templeton, Baron Rothschild, and many other successful investors. It’s a strategy that you can use too.

It’s exactly these kinds of opportunities we cover in Crisis Speculator. Click here for more details.
The article was originally published at internationalman.com.


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

Saturday, August 22, 2015

Why You Should Go to Africa Instead of College

By Doug Casey

Recently Doug Casey was a guest on the always excellent podcast, The Tom Woods Show. Tom and Doug talked about the enormous economic potential in Africa, Doug’s efforts to build a truly free market country, and better uses of your time and money than going to college.

It’s an exciting and informative conversation.


Tom Woods: What a pleasure and a delight it is to welcome back to the show Doug Casey. Doug is a libertarian economist, best selling financial author, international investor, entrepreneur, and the founder and chairman of Casey Research. Doug, welcome back to the show.

Doug Casey: Thanks, Tom. It is my pleasure.

Tom: You’ve been up to some interesting activity in Africa that I’d like to ask you about. Let’s start off by telling us what you’ve been busy doing there.

Doug: Well, the last two weeks, I’ve been visiting the Islamic Republic of Mauritania with a short side trip to Senegal. I’ve been pursuing my hobby, which is to propose to a backward country a plan for complete and total free marketization… including taking the country itself public on a major stock exchange and distributing most of the shares directly to the people who theoretically own the government assets. I felt like I had Maria Muldaur’s “Midnight at the Oasis” playing in the back of my mind the whole time I was there.

Tom: Suppose you got everything you wanted, what would the outcome look like?

Doug: Well, 100% of all government assets, land, state owned companies - everything - initially go into a corporation and we distribute the shares.

Let’s say, 70% pro-rata to every man, woman, and child in the country, so they don’t just theoretically own the government, now they actually do. 15% would be put it in trust for the next unborn generation to defuse that time bomb. 10% would be distributed to people who, let’s say, are of significant help to making this happen, and people who are important, whose rice bowls would be broken, and 5% to take public in major stock markets to raise some capital. Then we get rid of all duties, taxes, and regulations.

Dubai was absolutely nothing in 1980. You know what Dubai is now. If we go back further, in 1960, Hong Kong and Singapore both were very poor and look what has happened to them. So I think in today’s world if somebody is daring enough to want to do this, I think it could be of world historic importance. So I’m looking for the right guy.

Tom: I’d like to get a glimpse inside of a meeting like this. If you’re sitting down with the president, you’re sitting down with top officials, how do you make that case, especially when the response is going to be, “What’s in it for me”?

Doug: Well, that’s always the first question, of course. I start my presentation with three things I can do for you, Mr. President. It’s always a question of the benefit to the buyer. Number one, this plan will make you legitimately a multibillionaire. That always goes down very smoothly, because they know that doing what Mobutu and Mugabe did doesn’t work quite as well now as it did in the past. So it gets their attention.

Number two, the people will love you and treat you as the new George Washington. That sounds pretty good too. Half the time in these places most of the population wants to kill them. And number three, we will put you on the front cover of all the world’s magazines in a favorable light for the next decade. Now that sounds good, because these people, if they are even known to exist, are considered pariahs.

So they always listen to the rest of presentation. Of course then things start to go wrong… usually from people under the president. It’s the people under the president who are usually making the big money, not so much the president himself. So they are often the problem.

It always makes for a fun adventure and interesting cocktail party stories that I can tell and retell to people for hours. But it’s my hobby. It’s not an occupation. I haven’t made any money on it yet, although I always have a plan B when I go to these countries: look for mining concessions and so forth.

Tom: Suppose you had to do it all over again. Let’s say you turned 18 in 2015. Have conditions changed to the point where you would take a different path, and incidentally would you go to college?

Doug: I would definitely not go to college. Even then, I only did it because everybody from my socioeconomic class was going to college, so there was no thought involved on my part. It was just like going from eighth grade into high school. I counsel students against it today. College serves no useful purpose unless you want to learn a trade like doctoring or lawyering or you need a piece of paper to practice a particular occupation, or there is a formal discipline, like a hard science or engineering.

You will pick up lots of bad ideas. You will spend a huge amount of money, get yourself under a huge financial rock that will take you years to dig yourself out from under. What I suggest people do instead is lay out what the most intelligent thing to do with that four years of time and probably $200,000 of capital. I like the idea of traveling. The place that I would put first and foremost on my travel list today for economic reasons is Africa. Go someplace where you can be a big fish in a small pond quickly.

Tom: Back in the ’50s and ’60s in the wake of decolonization in Africa, you had a bunch of Western educated semi-Marxist political leaders who were nationalizing property and confiscating assets from rich people and so on, you wouldn’t touch Africa with a ten foot pole. What has changed since then?

Doug: Well, politics always draws the worst kinds of people of course. Most of the presidents of Africa even today are ex-generals or ex-colonels or something like that. It has economically improved a lot. The population has exploded and it’s going to explode more in the years to come. It’s chaotic. But if you can bring order to chaos, that’s opportunity.

If you go to the Orient, there are a lot of rich, smart people there. You are not going to have much of a competitive advantage. That’s true to a lesser extent in South America too. Africa is actually the place, I think, you want to go.

Tom: Do you have any particular parts of Africa? I’ve heard good things about Botswana. Do you have any place in particular that attracts you?

Doug: Other than South Africa, I’d say Botswana is the most developed country in Southern Africa for sure. But where would I go now? Well, of course, the nice thing about Africa is that it’s divided basically into three parts, Anglophone Africa, Francophone Africa, and Lusophone Africa, and my French is still adequately conversational. I lived in France and Switzerland for a year during college. My Spanish is functional. The language thing is a consideration of course. But on the other hand, most of the educated people in most countries of the world speak English, which is the world’s lingua franca today.

Where would I go? There are around 50 countries in Africa. I like small, obscure ones. Maybe Ghana is too developed. Look at Benin or Togo or maybe the Ivory Coast. Mauritania, where I just was, is actually quite interesting. Guinea-Bissau, Guinea-Conakry, you’ve got lots of choices. Somebody should get on a plane and just take a look. Then when they get into a country, a capital city, which is always where the action happens, get on the telephone to local lawyers and real estate agents and businessmen to set up appointments and see who you can get along with. One thing will lead to another.

I wouldn’t go to Africa as a lifestyle choice. I would go there for economic reasons and for the adventure that it would yield. I’d say as a lifestyle choice, it comes down to South America or the Orient. I lived in the Orient for years and I loved it.

Tom: What about the language barrier?

Doug: Well, I lived in Hong Kong and when I was there it was much more English. Of course everybody in China is learning English today, everybody, everywhere that you basically would want to talk to. I’m not trying to be elitist but the educated people - put it that way - all speak English today as a second language. This is one of the things that will slow down your progress on learning the local language, is that they all want to speak English to you. So that’s a double edged sword… but it’s really an advantage. No, don’t worry about the language problem.

Tom: Well, I sure appreciate your time, Doug Casey. You are the International Man himself, and we are always grateful for your time.

Doug: Well, thank you Tom. It is a pleasure to talk to you under any circumstances.

Editor’s Note: International Man is all about helping you make the most of your personal freedom and financial opportunities around the world. A great way to get started is to check out Going Global 2015. Normally, this book retails for $99. But we believe this book is so important, especially right now, that we’ve arranged a way for US residents to get a free copy. Click here to secure your copy.

The article was originally published at internationalman.com.


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

Thursday, April 30, 2015

Prove You’re Not a Terrorist

By Jeff Thomas

Recently, France decided to crack down on those people who make cash payments and withdrawals and who hold small bank accounts. The reason given was, not surprisingly, to “fight terrorism,” the handy catchall justification for any new restriction governments wish to impose on their citizens. French Finance Minister Michel Sapin stated at the time, “terrorism feeds on fraud, money laundering, and petty trafficking.”

And so, in future, people in France will not be allowed to make cash payments exceeding €1,000 (down from €3,000). Additionally, cash deposits and withdrawals totaling more than €10,000 per month will be reported to Tracfin—an anti-fraud and money laundering agency. Currency exchange will also be further restricted. Anyone changing over €1,000 to another currency (down from €8,000) will be required to show an identity card.

Do you need to make a deposit on a car? That might be suspect. Did you just deposit a dividend you received? It might be a payment from a terrorist organisation. Planning a holiday and need some cash? You might need to be investigated for terrorism. And France is not alone. In the US, federal law requires banks to file a “suspicious activity report” (SAR) on their customers whenever a customer requests a suspicious transaction. (In 2013, 1.6 million SAR’s were submitted.)

As to what may be deemed “suspicious,” it may be any transaction of $5,000 or more, but it may also mean a series of transactions that, together, exceed $5,000. The reader may be saying to himself, “But that’s just normal, everyday banking business—that means anybody, any time, could be reported.” If so, he would be correct. Essentially, any banking activity the reader conducts could be regarded as suspect.

In Italy, in 2011, Prime Minister Mario Monti began working to end the right of landlords, tradesmen, and small businesses to perform large transactions in cash, which critics say help them evade taxation. In December of that year, his government reduced the maximum allowed cash payment from €2,500 euros to €1,000.

Spain has outlawed cash transactions over €2,500. The justification? “To crack down on the black market and tax evaders.”

In Sweden, the country where the first banknote was created in 1661, the use of cash is being steadily eliminated. Increasingly, expenses are paid and purchases made by cellphone text message, and many banks have stopped handling cash altogether.

Denmark’s central bank, Nationalbanken, has another justification for ending its use of banknotes—producing paper money and coinage is not cost effective.

Israel also seeks to end the use of cash. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s chief of staff has announced a three phase plan to “all but do away with cash transactions in Israel.”

Individuals and businesses would initially continue to be allowed to make small cash transactions, but eventually, all transactions would be converted to electronic forms of payment. The justification being used in Israel is that “cash is bad,” because it encourages an underground economy and enables tax evasion.

Across the Atlantic, banks and governments are on a similar campaign. A 2012 law in Mexico bans large cash transactions, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison.

In August 2014, Uruguay passed the Financial Inclusion Law, which limits cash transactions to US$5,000. In future, all transactions over that amount will be required to be performed electronically. The crying need for such a law? The stated reason was to improve the country’s credit ratings.

The Elimination of Paper Currency

In recent years, in commenting on the inevitability of currency collapse in those countries that are indebted beyond the possibility of repayment, I’ve made the prediction that governments and banks would jointly resort to the elimination of paper currency and replace it with an electronic one.

Some readers have understandably regarded the prediction as “alarmist.” After all, the idea is so farfetched—paper currency may be conceptually flawed, but it’s been around for a long time. But banks and governments seek total control of money, and this can only be achieved if they possess a monopoly on the flow of money.

If a worldwide system can be implemented in which currency transactions can only take place electronically through banking institutions, the banks will then have total power over the ability of a people to function economically. But why would any government allow the banks such dictatorial monetary control? The answer is that governments would then realise a long held, but heretofore impossible dream: to have access to a record of every monetary transaction that takes place for every single individual.

Governments have been both more proactive and bolder than I had anticipated and are simply imposing the restrictions worldwide under the justifications previously stated. As yet, there hasn’t been any backlash, and it may be that people worldwide may simply swallow the pill, not understanding what it means to their economic liberty.

If the public are not treating the new system as serious business, governments most assuredly are. Bankers on both sides of the Atlantic have forcibly become unpaid government spies. If they don’t comply, they can be fined and/or lose their banking charter. Directors can be imprisoned.

The US Justice Department already wants to take this overreach even further. Banks are now being asked to call the authorities whenever something “suspicious” occurs, presumably so that immediate action may be taken. What we are witnessing is the creation of totalitarian control of your finances. The implication that you may have some sort of terrorist involvement is a smokescreen.

As the above information attests, if for any reason you object to any of these measures, you have already been forewarned—you may be suspected of money laundering, tax evasion, or even terrorism. If you use cash for any reason—to pay your rent, to buy a used car, or (soon) to pay for your lunch—you may trigger an investigation. (The onus of proof that you are not guilty good will be on you.)

The take away from this discussion? Totalitarian control of currency is an inevitability, and it will take place sooner rather than later. The only question is whether the reader can retain some control of his wealth. Fortunately, wealth may still be held in land and precious metals, but these are only safe if they’re held outside a country that seeks totalitarian rule over its people. The ability to retain wealth still exists and, as always, internationalisation remains a key element to its continuation.

Editor’s Note: The ultimate way to diversify your savings internationally is to transfer it out of the immediate reach of your home government. And we've put together an in depth video presentation to help you do just that. It's called, "Internationalizing Your Assets."

Our all star panel of experts, with Doug Casey and Peter Schiff, provide low cost options for international diversification that anyone can implement - including how to safely set up foreign storage for your gold and silver bullion and how to move your savings abroad without triggering invasive reporting requirements. This is a must watch video for any investor and it's completely free.

Click here to watch Internationalizing Your Assets right now.

The article was originally published at internationalman.com


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

Friday, December 5, 2014

The Healthy Bull Market: Bah, Humbug!

By Tony Sagami


Are you a long term investor? Convinced that all you have to do is wait long enough to be guaranteed huge stock market profits? Take a look at the chart below of rolling 30 year returns of the S&P 500 and tell me if it affects your enthusiasm.

The reality is that stock market results vary widely depending on what your starting point is. For example, any investor who put $100,000 into the stock market 1954 was rewarded with roughly the same $100,000 30 years later in 1984.

Yup… 30 years in, and not a penny of profits.



With the stock market at all-time highs, you may find it hard to be pessimistic, but the stock market is doing as well as it’s ever done, with a rolling 30-year return of better than 400%.

How would you feel about earning 0% on your money for 30 years?

Could the stock market go even higher? Yes, it could—but the odds aren’t favorable after the QE fueled rally has pushed stocks to historically high valuations. High valuations? Despite what the mass media and the Wall Street crowd try to tell you, valuations are quite high.

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

The most popular myth spouted on financial TV these days is the notion that the S&P 500 is trading at 19 times earnings. Baloney!

First, that 19 P/E is based on “forward” earnings, not trailing earnings. As unreliable as economists and self-serving analysts are, I’m surprised that anyone—especially you—believes anything they say.

Second, that forward looking earnings forecast is based on those 500 companies increasing their earnings by an average of 23% over the next 12 months. Yup… a 23% increase!

That’s extremely optimistic, but I think especially misplaced now that the steroid of quantitative easing is behind us. Consider this: everybody agrees that stocks responded extremely positively to quantitative easing, so doesn’t it make sense to be concerned now that the monetary punch bowl has been yanked away?

The first place to look for signs of waning enthusiasm are small-cap stocks. While the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500 were setting all-time highs, the Russell 2000 wasn’t able to punch through its March, July, and September peaks.



This quadruple top looks like a formidable resistance level for small stocks and clear evidence that investors are reducing risk by rotating out of small-cap stocks and into big cap stocks.



Additionally, financial stocks are showing signs of exhaustion too. Healthy bull markets are often led by financial stocks, but the financials are lagging the major indexes now. That’s why I think last week’s 3.9% GDP print smelled fishy; some weak economic numbers are spelling trouble.

Durable Goods Orders Not So Good: The headline number for October durable goods orders was strong with a +0.4% increase, but if you back out the volatile transportation sales, the picture is a lot uglier. If you exclude transportation—because just a few $100 million jet orders can skew the numbers—the 0.4% gain turns into a 0.9% decrease.

By the way, orders for defense aircraft were up 45.3%, but orders for non defense aircraft orders were down 0.1% in October. If not for some big government orders, the results would be absolutely horrible!

Unemployment Claims Rise Despite Holiday Hiring: The job picture, which had been improving, showed some deterioration last week despite going into the busy holiday hiring season. Initial jobless claims jumped to 313,000, a 7.2% increase from last week as well as much higher than the 286,000 forecast. It also broke a 10-week streak of claims below 300,000.

Before You Cheer Cheap Oil: After OPEC agreed to keep production levels unchanged, the price of oil plunged by 7% on Friday to less than $68 a barrel. That’s good news for drivers, but oil’s falling prices (as well as those of other commodities) are a very bad sign for economic growth. Moreover, the energy industry has been one of the few industries producing good, high-paying jobs. Thus, low oil prices could turn that smile into a frown in no time.



The Bond Conundrum: The yield on 10 year Treasury bonds was as high as 3% earlier this year but dropped to 2.31 last Friday. If our economy were rocking as well as the 3.9% GDP rate suggests, interest rates should be rising… not falling like a rock.

The stock market may not fall out of bed tomorrow morning, but the holiday season for stock market investors looks like it may be more Scrooge than Santa Claus.

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.



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

Sunday, November 30, 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


Herbalife recently reported its third-quarter results and they were just awful. Herbalife earned $0.13 per share in Q3, but that was a whopping 92% decline from the $1.32 it earned last year.

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


The Federal Trade Commission is investigating Herbalife for what could ultimately result in charges that Herbalife is operating an illegal pyramid scheme.

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!


When your company is in the middle of FTC and FBI investigations, the last thing you want is for your company officers to get in trouble with the law. A current Herbalife board member, Pedro Cardoso, has been charged with illegal money laundering by Brazilian prosecutors. Time will tell if the charges are true… but it looks very 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


The above issues are all serious and enough to stay away from Herbalife, but the biggest red flag I see is the abusive financial engineering that Herbalife is using to prop up its stock.

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.



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

Friday, October 3, 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.

For those who would like a bit more bearish meat, I offer you a link to John Hussman’s latest piece, “The Ingredients of a Market Crash.”

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

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 Fox
Harvard 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!

Tuesday, December 24, 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"