Friday, June 27, 2014

Three High Income Stocks for the Williams Plan



What is an Income Stock?

An equity security that pays regular, often steadily increasing dividends, and offers a high yield that may generate the majority of overall returns. While there is no specific breakpoint for classification, most income stocks have lower levels of volatility than the overall stock market, and offer higher-than-market dividend yields. Income stocks may have limited future growth options, thereby requiring a lower level of ongoing capital investment. The excess cash flow from profits can therefore be directed back toward investors on a regular basis.

Income stocks can come from any industry, but are most commonly found as companies operating within real estate (through real estate investment trusts, or REITs), energy sectors, utilities, natural resources and financial institutions.

What You Should Do!

Back in 1976, I created the Williams Plan. That plan uses the Sharebuilder's  Account that allows you to put $25 into the account whenever you want to buy any stock on the New York, American, and NASAQ Markets.  If you want to purchase stock making high dividends on it as well as wait for the stock to increase in value, the Williams Plan is what you want to get into.

 The ShareBuilder's  Plan is a long term plan for such ideas as saving for children's college or retirement.


http://greedyfriendsstockclub.blogspot.com/2012_06_01_archive.html

Take my course and learn more about  the Williams Plan.
 

Louis Navellier is a renowned growth investor. He is the editor of five investing newsletters: Blue Chip Growth,Emerging GrowthUltimate GrowthFamily Trust and Platinum Growth. His most popular service, Blue Chip Growth, has a track record of beating the market 3:1 over the last 14 years. He uses a combination of quantitative and fundamental analysis to identify market-beating stocks.

 Here are three stocks that Mr. Louis Navellier suggest purchasing for income.

Vector Group (VGR)

Vector Group (VGR) is usually thought of as a tobacco stock. The company does make cigarettes under 188 different brands and private-label arrangements, but there is more to this company than just tobacco.

Vector Group recently increased its ownership in real estate broker Douglas Elliman Realty and now reports that company as part of its overall operations. Real estate now represents 44% of revenues, and that should increase going forward as the company expands away for the declining tobacco business.

The real estate operations just reported a 37% year-over-year increase in sales and should be the driver of future growth for Vector Group. Portfolio Grader noticed the improved condition of the company back in March and upgraded VGR stock to an “A.” VGR stock yields 7.74% and is a “strong buy” at the current price.

Air Industries Group (AIRI)

Next on his list of high-quality dividend stocks, Air Industries Group (AIRI) makes products for the aerospace industry, including things like landing gears, engine mounts and flight controls. Its products are used in a wide variety of military and commercial aircraft. AIRI also makes electromechanical devices that are used in military aircraft like the Blackhawk UH-60 helicopter and the F-36 Joint Strike fighter planes.

Air Industries has been looking to grow by acquisition and has completed two deals so far this year. It purchased Woodbine Products, an aerospace components company earlier this year and just announced that the company is buying Eur-Pac Holdings, a company that specialized in packaging and supplies.

Management just raised the dividend back in March, which prompted AIRI stock to be upgraded to an “A.” The stock yields 5.76% and remains a “strong buy” at the current price.

Ferrellgas Partners (FGP)

Ferrellgas Partners (FGP) is in the propane business. It distributes propane under the Blue Rhino name though its portable tank exchange program and a network of dealers and outlets.

Ferrellgas also supplies propane to agricultural and industrial customers and sells propane appliances and fittings. The company has been moving to diversify away from the propane markets and recently purchased Sable Environmental, a fast-growing fluid logistics provider operating in the Eagle Ford Shale fields.

FGP stock was upgraded to an “A” two weeks and ago and remains a “strong buy.” At today’s price, FGP stock yields 7.49%.

The search for yield becomes more difficult as stock prices work higher. Make sure you avoid the low-quality dividend traps that can hurt your portfolio performance. Use Portfolio Grader to find the high-yielding dividend stocks that also have high-quality fundamentals.


Friday, June 20, 2014

Don't look Now But a Freight Train is Coming Your Way!



Picture of the average American family


If you do not have a retirement program and strategy by the time you are 40 years old and you don't care to have one, nothing I can say can help you. But I just want you to know that people are starting to realize that the government is not going to save you from poverty. You may end up eating dog food for dinner in the near future.

 But don't take my word for it. Here is an article about the panic hitting Americans over their retirement savings. Good luck and may God have mercy on your sole.

Retirement savings fear grips Americans

20 hr ago By MSN Money producer

 

More than half of Americans are worried they won't have enough money to retire, a poll finds. 


 

Americans are freaking out about their personal savings -- and for good reason. A recent Gallup poll found that 59 percent of those surveyed were very or moderately worried they won't have enough money for retirement -- by far their biggest concern. 

Many people once counted on a triad of support for retirement -- Social Security, personal savings and employer-sponsored pensions. Yet in the wake of  the Great Recession and a long stretch of high unemployment and stagnant wages, the once-dependable foundation has been crumbling.

Employers have phased out generous defined benefit pension programs in favor of 401(k)s and other workplace-based retirement accounts. Personal savings have taken a dive as many people have tapped retirement savings to pay the rent or help make ends meet. And many young people seriously question whether the Social Security trust fund will be able to pay them anything by the time they retire.

The latest National Retirement Risk Index from the Center for Retirement Research (CRR) at Boston College says that more than half (53 percent) of households risk falling more than 10 percent short of the retirement income they'll need to maintain their standard of living. More than 40 percent of retirees are also at risk of running out of money for daily needs, out-of-pocket spending on health care or long-term care, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI).

Even more alarming, the National Bureau of Economic Research recently concluded that nearly one-quarter of Americans could not come up with $2,000 in 30 days if necessary, and another 20 percent would have to pawn or sell possessions to do so. That would mean nearly half of all Americans are financially stressed.

"The graying of Americans, a growing retirement population, rapid changes in the private employer pension programs, projected insolvency in public pension funds, fiscal pressures at both the federal and state level -- all this and more requires policymakers to renew their focus on ensuring existing programs support individuals and families in their twilight years," said Bill Hoagland, a senior vice president of the Bipartisan Policy Center.

The mounting crisis over retirement savings and investment underscores a key facet of the evolving national debate over income inequality: While many households are well prepared for retirement, only 17 percent of people in the lowest income quartile will have sufficient resources to avoid running short of money by the end of their lives, according to EBRI's 2014 metric.

The Bipartisan Policy Center on Monday is launching a "personal savings initiative" to begin formulating a series of innovative proposals to try to increase national savings, improve income security in retirement, and guard against the potential costs of long-term care. While Congress is unlikely to take up any meaningful tax or financial services legislation before November, a new commission chaired by former senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) and former Social Security Administration official James B. Lockhart III hopes to outline an action agenda for the coming year.

The group will look for ways to beef up the defined contribution retirement system by increasing personal savings for retirement and improving the effectiveness of tax-advantaged savings vehicles, according to a sum of the initiative.

The commission will also examine the impact of federal policies on private savings, the finances and operation of Social Security Disability Insurance, the interaction of Social Security with personal savings, the impact of long-term care needs on retirement security, and the role of homeownership and student debt.

The reasons for shortfalls in retirement savings are complicated, but three stand out, says the BPC:

A sea change in workplace retirement plans

Over the past two decades, the workplace retirement landscape has dramatically shifted to defined contribution plans, in which a worker and in some cases the employer contribute to an account managed by the employee. These have largely replaced defined benefit plans, which specify a benefit -- often a percentage of the average salary during the last few years of employment -- once the worker retires.

Since 1998, the number of companies offering any sort of defined benefit plan plummeted from 71 to 30 -- and an increasing number of those are hybrid plans, where workers accumulate an account balance rather than an annuity. When 401(k)s were created in 1978, they were meant to be a supplement to traditional defined benefit pensions, not a stand-alone retirement account. But over time, they have evolved to serve that purpose -- although they typically provide far less in long-term benefits than the old plans.


Dismal personal savings

The reasons for the long decline in personal savings are difficult to pinpoint, but they likely include stagnant real incomes for many workers, rising standards of living and higher consumption, and a weaker dollar than in the past. The savings rate is the percentage of money that one deducts from his or her personal disposable income for retirement.

America's savings rate fell steadily from the early 1980s through the mid-2000s, ticking up only during or after recessions, according to a Washington Post analysis. It topped 11 percent during President Ronald Reagan's first term. From 2005-2007, the annual rate averaged 3 percent. The savings rate essentially doubled during the Great Recession, and stayed there, averaging nearly 6 percent from 2009-2012. By early 2013, the rate had dipped to 2.6 percent, before rising again to 4 percent by mid-2014.

A Capital One ShareBuilder survey this year found that 72 percent of Americans are saving – while many more than that know they should be -- and only one-fifth of them are saving 10 percent or more. On average, people are saving only 6.4 percent of their annual income, the survey found.



Taking the money out

For those with defined contribution retirement accounts, carefully managing withdrawals is part of the challenge. Many people are shocked to discover that their account balances, when they need them, are smaller than they anticipated because of cash-outs during job changes, hardship withdrawals, or expensive 401(k) loans. Moreover, those who do not use their savings to purchase lifetime annuities face the risk of outliving their savings.

Individuals without long-term care insurance face impoverishment, having to spend almost all of their financial assets and income on care before they can qualify for long-term support benefits through Medicaid, the federal-state safety net program.

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Why I did well in the Junk Bond Market

The line shows the spread between the Bank of America-Merrill Lynch high yield index and the 10 year Treasury bond yield. It is a proxy for the risk premium for junk bonds.

The bond market from 1997 to 2013.


In 1976, I took a class on Stocks and Bonds at Allegheny Community College in Pittsburgh, Pa. I bought the recommended book for the class but we never used it. I read the book anyway. In that book was a Junk bond Investment study. Over the years, this became the bases of my Junk bond strategy. I estimate that this $15 book allowed me to generate over $500,000 over a 38 year period.


I learned several things about Junk bonds;

1. About 75% of bonds that go into junk bond status go back up into investment grade.

2. Junk Bonds give high returns.

3. Junk Bonds that have Standard and Poor's ratings of BBB to B- give a relative safe return compared to speculative stocks.

4. Junk bonds that have a Standard and Poor's rating of BBB to B- with a maturity of 1 to 4 years are ideal income investments.  

5.  Many junk bonds sell for below par or $1,000 when the bond issue has been on the market for several years and has several year to run.

6. Look for junk bonds on the secondary market before looking at them on the primary market.

7. Use an online broker to buy junk bonds. Full brokerage service brokers and banks have a conflict of interest when dealing with junk bonds on the secondary market.  
My college book outlined the history of the Great Depression of the 1930s (started in 1929) and how the bond market reacted. When the Great Depression returned in 2008, I knew what to expect. I bought many bonds at a deep discount with yields as high as 36% return. When my bonds started maturing in 2013, yields fell for buyers to 5% to 7%. When yields fall, prices of bonds increase. So the bonds in my portfolio that did not mature was selling on the bond market far above par or $1,000 per bond.  

Most newspaper and TV people never studied the bond market so they could only go by what the big brokerage firms were telling them. They said that bonds were very risky. In fact, the brokerage firms did not want customers in bonds. If they were in bonds, what incentive would the customer have to sell the bonds getting from 10% to 36% return in interest? Most bonds could have been bought for a 20% to 40% discount from par ($1,000). So why sell? If the broker has no sellers, they do not get a return commission. No commission, no paycheck.

I think you are seeing where I am going here. The brokerage firms have a conflict of interest. To stay in business, they must protect their interest first and the customers interest second. So keep that in mind when using a full service broker or your banks brokerage services.      

What happened to Public Education on the Financial Markets?




This chart looks a lot like the 2008 Stock Market Crash Chart.


The West Mifflin School District in the 1960s did not teach students about investing.  In the General Business classes, they spent maybe 15 minutes on how to read stock market quotes in the newspaper. They gave no other information to students.  The General Business classes were for children who were not college bound. The children that were, did not get any training in financial markets. My studies concerning financial markets started in the newspapers and in books on my own.   

I started hanging around brokerage firms in 1972. This was a time when brokerage, banking, insurance, and real-estate had to be separate companies by law (Known as the Glass-Stiegel Act ).  Brokerage firms where owned by a group of people and sometimes one person.  They were regional companies. The owners were concerned about helping the customer save or make money for the future as well as making  a living for themselves.

 

These owners took pride in their work and was held in high regard by the public.  The no. 1 PBS TV show at that time was Wall Street Week with Louis Rukeyser. This show gave anyone who cared to learn anything about investments exposure to the industry.  Here is where I got the idea to teach the public this skill through TV, Radio, and newspaper columns.  


The Floor of the New York Stock Exchange

Louis Rukeyser, Television Host, Dies at 73

BY JAMES GRANT

Published: May 3, 2006

James Grant was a panelist on "Wall Street Week" for 10 years, beginning in 1988.

Louis Rukeyser, the exquisitely tailored and pun-loving television host who helped millions of Americans believe that they could get rich in the stock market, or at least begin to understand it, died yesterday at his home in Greenwich, Conn. He was 73.

He died of multiple myeloma, said his brother Bud Rukeyser.

When "Wall Street Week" was broadcast for the first time on Nov. 20, 1970, probably nobody, not even the always self-assured Mr. Rukeyser, dreamed that the show would run for 32 years while attracting the biggest audience on public television and making its host a celebrity in the improbable field of light-hearted, free-market-oriented financial commentary. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was then languishing, and the population of American mutual funds numbered a scant 323.

And though the Dow continued to languish (not until 1982 did it push above 1,000, a mark it had first set in 1966), "Wall Street Week" prospered. "I invented the job of economic commentary on television," Mr. Rukeyser said in 1980. He was already well along in inventing the medium of investment broadcasting.

"Fridays at 8:30 find me — amply fed, digestive organs ruminating contentedly to the rhythmic sloshing of martini juice — sitting in my Louis Quinze armchair awaiting another installment of 'Wall Street Week,' " wrote Russell Baker in The New York Times at the beginning of the show's second decade. "By 8:33 my mind is reeling so wildly with gyrations of the Dow Jones average and the pinwheeling of money funds, Treasury bills and gold markets that I often require a calming infusion of brandy."

The show attained its biggest audience, some six million viewers, in the mid-1980's.

Mr. Rukeyser, though he prodded the financial gurus who appeared on the program to forecast the stock market (the rosier the outlook, the better he liked it, as a rule), he usually kept his own predictive counsel.

But when, in 1980, he uncharacteristically ventured part way out on a limb — "I think we have entered the decade of the common stock," he said — he proved only partly correct. In fact, the market had embarked on a nearly two-decade up-cycle, and Mr. Rukeyser was started on his own professional bull market.

"Wall Street Week" had as its point of origin not the beating heart of American finance in Lower Manhattan but the leafy Baltimore suburb of Owings Mills, Md. The show was the brainchild of Anne Truax Darlington, a producer with Maryland Public Broadcasting, and the original corps of panelists was recruited from the Baltimore financial community, not previously noted for its telegenic possibilities.

Mr. Rukeyser's supporting cast members (later augmented by experts from outside Baltimore) became little celebrities in their own right. "I get recognized in bus lines," one long-serving panelist, Monte Gordon, remarked in 1990. "I get recognized when I'm eating in restaurants. There's a lot of psychic satisfaction to being on the show."

There was money at stake, too. The value of an appearance on "Wall Street Week" to each week's "special guest"— mutual-fund portfolio manager, bank trust officer, economist — climbed as the bull stock market went higher and higher.

"So how badly do people want to get on?" The Times asked a New York publicist, Len Kessler, in 1990. "It's spelled k-i-l-l," said Mr. Kessler.

Louis Richard Rukeyser was second of four sons of the financial journalist Merryle S. Rukeyser, who wrote a syndicated column in the Hearst newspapers.

Louis Rukeyser graduated from the Woodrow Wilson School of Princeton University in 1954. He took a reporting job at The Baltimore Sun and, within five years, was made London bureau chief, an unusually swift rise through the newsroom ranks. He joined ABC News in 1965 as a correspondent and commentator. Not until 1973 did he judge it safe to quit his day job for a still-unproven "Wall Street Week."

It was a decision that he never regretted. After 20 years on the air, Mr. Rukeyser was earning $300,000 a year from the show and $1 million or more in annual speaking income, each speech bearing the same title, "What's Ahead for the Economy" — the echo of the title of a book he wrote for Simon & Schuster in 1983.

He produced, in addition, a thrice-weekly newspaper column and a book on investing ("How to Make Money in Wall Street," Doubleday, 1974). Later he added a pair of newsletters, Louis Rukeyser's Wall Street and Louis Rukeyser's Mutual Funds. He flew first class, loved to gamble, slept in the best and gaudiest suites in the finest hotels and dressed every inch the sybarite he was. In 1991, The Fashion Foundation of America pronounced him the "best-dressed man in finance."

The host of "Wall Street Week" ("with Louis Rukeyser," he never failed to add to the show's title) and self-described champion of the "little guy" could be openly contemptuous of professional investors, a sentiment many of them warmly reciprocated. Mr. Rukeyser reserved his most withering scorn for the "gloomy Guses" and "Wrong-Way Corrigans" who warned of financial troubles that, during the prosperous 1990's, never transpired.

An eternal bull on the stock market, the more bullish, and less tolerant of dissenting bears he became, the higher the averages climbed. On the program of Nov. 5, 1999, Mr. Rukeyser announced the firing of the veteran panelist Gail Dudak for her 156 consecutive weeks of bearishly errant forecasting. Ms. Dudak heard the news from her neighbors the next morning. The stock market peaked four months later.

Though "Wall Street Week" never fell from the top of the heap of TV financial programs (a pile that owed much of its impressive height to Mr. Rukeyser's success), viewership slipped as stock prices fell and as competition from other financial media increased. In March 2002, Maryland Public TV announced that the snowy-haired Mr. Rukeyser would be eased out to make room for a youth movement led by the staff of Fortune Magazine.

Mr. Rukeyser would have none of it. "I want you to rise up out of your chairs," he summoned his viewers from the set of "Wall Street Week' the next Friday evening, "not to shout, 'I'm mad as hell and not going to take it anymore!' but," he added, to "write or e-mail your local PBS station saying you heard Louis Rukeyser is still going to have a program and that you'd like to see it."

Mr. Rukeyser was fired. But he quickly re-established the show at CNBC. He took pride in his new success and glee in the spectacle of Maryland Public Broadcasting suffering a forced retrenchment as his sponsors decamped from public television with him. (The Fortune version of "Wall Street Week" was canceled in 2005.)

Failing health forced Mr. Rukeyser off the air in 2003. He was presented with the Gerald Loeb Lifetime Achievement Emmy for Business and Financial Reporting in 2004.
 

The Hijacking of the Industry

I noticed that in the 1980s, the small community brokerage firms were bought out by large national and multinational corporations. Then the media and full brokerage firms started turning customers away from bonds. They did not encourage customers to buy individual stocks.

Instead they channeled everyone into mutual funds. The Glass-Stiegel Act was no longer in effect, due to an act of congress. By the turn of the century, the large corporations had control of most people's 401K, IRAs, and Pension Funds. They had control of your corporate political power.

The large corporations had many reasons for taking control.

1. Mutual funds gave the brokerage firms more commissions than individual stocks and bonds.

2. The funds controlled the voting rights to the stock held in the many portfolios in the funds. They voted in the Directors, they put proposals before the board, and they had a say in who got hired and who got fired in top management.

Stock and bond investing has gone back to a skill that is passed down from one generation in a family to the next. If your family did not do it or was indifferent to it then chances are, so are you!

 

This is why workers wages have been stagnant for 20 to 30 years and top management can name their own salaries. Here is why your jobs are moving over seas and you the worker cannot do anything about it.

Friday, June 6, 2014

Brazil Federative Republic 11% of 8/17/2040

Brazil


Brazil, officially the Federative Republic of Brazil, is the largest country in both South America and the Latin American region. It is the world's fifth largest country, both by geographical area and by population. It is the largest lusophone country in the world, and the only one in the Americas. A Lusophone (or lusophone) is someone who speaks the Portuguese language either as a native speaker, as an additional language, or as a learner.



If you want to invest for your retirement, consider this bond;

 

Brazil Federative Republic 11% of 8/17/2040

 

 If you don't plan to retire for another 25 years, I suggest Brazil federative Republic bonds giving 11% interest until 8/17/ 2040. You will have to pay a premium for the bonds (more than $1,000). But you get $110 per year for 26 years.

 

That means that for one bond, you will collect $2,860.00 over 26 years.

 

Moody's rated the bond at Baa2. Standard and Poor's rated the bond at BBB-. These ratings are just short of investment grade meaning that for the money that you would be getting, you have a relatively high degree of safety.  

 

The only big danger that I see in purchasing this bond is that it is callable starting at  08/15/2014 at $1,000 per bond. That means that if you purchase the bond say at $1,100 and they call in the bond, you can lose $100 when called in but you will keep the interest up to the day they call the bond.   

Let me add that just because the bond is callable on 08/15/ 2014 does not mean that they will call your bond in at that time. They may not call your bond in at all.

If you buy the bond at par or below par, you do not have a call risk. The closer you buy your bond to par ($1,000), the less risk that you have.  They may call in your bond in 2025, 2035, or 2037. If that happens, you would have made in interest enough to cover your call risk.

Here is your biggest risk that you have with this bond.