Greece and China Briefly Depress

Greece and China Briefly Depress U.S. Stocks, but Not for Long

by Louis Navellier

July 14, 2015

*All content in the Marketmail Introduction is the opinion of Louis Navellier of Navellier & Associates, Inc.*

Modified Greek Flag ImageThe Greek conundrum, combined with the violent sell-off in Shanghai’s A-shares, finally caught up with the U.S. stock market last Tuesday when the S&P 500 crossed its 200-day moving average.  Also fueling the stock market sell-off was a strong U.S. dollar that continued to put downward pressure on commodity prices, especially crude oil.  However, the market then staged an impressive intraday reversal on Tuesday.

Lately, these major moving-average crossing points have proven to be a great near-term buying point.

Regarding Greece, one of the big surprises last week was that Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis resigned, despite the overwhelming “no” vote on the country’s referendum.  In his resignation statement on July 6, according to Forbes, Varoufakis said he would “wear the creditors’ loathing with pride!”  Furthermore, even though the no vote was a big victory for Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, he is now under increasing pressure to come up with some sort of face-saving solution with the rest of the euro-zone and IMF, because the longer Greece’s banks remain closed, the more the Greek economy collapses, since the velocity of money has virtually ground to a halt.

Ultimately, the rest of the euro-zone has to decide if they even want Greece in their club. If not, it appears that the time has finally come to boot them out of the euro-zone, which could effectively destroy the Greek economy.  The rest of the euro-zone basically needs to decide whether it wants to throw more money at the problem and kick the can down the road by restructuring Greece’s debt – or simply let Greece default.

Shanghai Street ImageDespite the chaos in Greece, China was actually bigger news than Greece last week, due to the ongoing chaos in the Shanghai Composite Index, which is down 32% in 17 trading days. The Chinese government seems to be pulling out all the stops in an attempt to stabilize the Shanghai market.  Last Wednesday, Bloomberg reported that the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) banned major corporate executives, shareholders, and directors from selling stakes in listed companies for six months in an effort to stop the bleeding.  They said that investors with more than a 5% stake must “maintain” their positions.  Mark Mobius, chairman of Templeton Emerging Markets Group said that the CSRC rule “suggests desperation” and added that “it actually creates more fear because it shows that they’ve lost the control.” (Source: Bloomberg, July 8, 2015, “Templeton’s Mobius Says China Stock Sale Ban Act of Desperation.)

As I said last week, I do not expect the Shanghai stock market’s woes to significantly spread beyond Asia.  Furthermore, the Chinese ADR shares rebounded strongly last Thursday and Friday.  China’s ADR shares have been more stable than the speculative “A shares” that Shanghai offers to Chinese citizens.

As if China and Greece did not provide enough chaos, NYSE closed for over three hours on Wednesday due to a “technical glitch.”  Marissa Arnold, a NYSE spokesperson, told investors: “We are currently experiencing a technical issue that we’re working to resolve as quickly as possible.”  Although NYSE trading did resume late Wednesday, there is no doubt that this “technical glitch” was very unsettling.

A similar “technical glitch” also shut down The Wall Street Journal and United Airlines on Wednesday.  These near-simultaneous outages raised fears of a cyberattack. Specifically, the Journal’s website experienced a network outage starting at about 11:45 am Wednesday, while United said that it had a “network connectivity” issue that grounded its flights for over an hour at Newark and other airports.

In This Issue

In Income Mail, Ivan Martchev will delve more deeply into the China market bubble as well as the collapse in commodity prices, partly due to falling China demand.  In Growth Mail, Gary Alexander will review two of his most relevant and practical market debates from last week’s Freedom Fest, and then I will return to take a look at last week’s economic indicators with a focus on how the Fed might react.

Income Mail:
The Serial Bubble Poppers
by Ivan Martchev
The Demand Side of the Commodity Equation

Growth Mail:
Top-Down and Bottoms-Up (Analysis) in Las Vegas
by Gary Alexander
The Bears Defeat the Bulls – Once Again
Monopoly vs. Competition – The Search for Great Companies

Stat of the Week:
The Service Economy Improves – in Every Category
by Louis Navellier
FOMC Minutes Reveal Major Concerns

Income Mail:

*All content in Income Mail is the opinion of Ivan Martchev*

The Serial Bubble Poppers

by Ivan Martchev

In late 1971, Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index began rising. Maybe the word got out that Henry Kissinger went to China secretly for the first time in 1971 or people figured the relationship was on the mend by the time he went officially the second time; but by the time Mao was shaking hands with President Nixon in 1972, the Hang Seng Index was in the midst of a parabolic rise. Mainland China did not have a stock market at that time and the country looked and operated a lot more like North Korea does today. But if one wanted to speculate that China would open up after the Nixon visit, one lost about 90% from the peak as the Hang Seng crashed in 1973.  After Mao died in 1976, Deng Xiaoping, a much more pragmatic leader, took power and put China on the right course. After that, the Hong Kong market began to recover.

Hong Kong Stock Market Chart

Graphs are for illustrative and discussion purposes only. Please read important disclosures at the end of this commentary.

Hong Kong is a large port city and as such is a great facilitator of trade throughout Asia. The city has boomed as China has grown dramatically in the past four decades since the crash in 1973. The market has seen many crashes since then, including the 1987 Wall Street crash (when the Hong Kong dollar was already pegged to the U.S. dollar), the Asian Crisis in 1997, or in the Wall Street Crash of 2008.

Hong Kong Stock Market Chart

Graphs are for illustrative and discussion purposes only. Please read important disclosures at the end of this commentary.

Now comes the Shanghai Composite Crash of 2015, which does not look like some of those other crashes yet. The Hong Kong crash of 1973 looks like a blip on this longer-term chart; but for the index to decline 90% -- and stay depressed for quite a few years -- wiped out more than one family fortune. Those that held diversified portfolios did recover after 10 years or so, but the leveraged “investors” (the kind we have too many of today in Shanghai) surely got wiped out. The same period of depressed prices happened with the 2007 bubble in the Shanghai Composite, which until last year was about 65% below its 2007 high. The point I am making is that when the Chinese blow serial bubbles with their gambling nature, it takes them a while to get out of the misery they inflict on themselves when those bubbles pop. None of the popped bubbles wiped out Hong Kong as a vibrant economy, but those crashes surely did not help.

The trouble with spinning these serial bubbles and serial comebacks in the Hang Seng Index is that China does not operate like Hong Kong. While liberalized and increasingly capitalist in nature, the mainland Chinese economy has a serious debt overhang from years of interventionist policies by the Beijing government, be it forced lending in the 2008-09 dry spell for Chinese exports or the urge to grow at all costs, or to maintain Chinese social stability, as they call it, by basically keeping people employed.

Debt to Gross Domestic Product Ratio Chart

Source: Bloomberg.com

Graphs are for illustrative and discussion purposes only. Please read important disclosures at the end of this commentary.

The problem is that as the Chinese economy grows at a breakneck pace, total profits in the economy do not grow but total indebtedness in the economy grows dramatically. The above table shows that in 2000 the total financial leverage in the economy was 121%; in 2007 it was 158%, while in 2014 that number was already 282%. As I wrote last week, as China’s economy grows, total indebtedness in the economy grows much faster. This is the definition of a credit bubble. Such estimates do not take into consideration the shadow banking system, an unregulated financing superstructure, which by some estimates has surpassed 100% of GDP. It is possible that the total leverage in the Chinese economy, if you include shadow banking, is approaching 400%.

If there is a recession in China as a result of the real estate crash and stock market crash – a dual crash situation – this debt overhang will have profound deflationary consequences. This is why over the last week we saw desperate measures like the release of funds by the Chinese central bank to increase margin lending in the stock market. The Chinese central bank will “provide liquidity support” to the government-backed margin finance agency, China Securities Finance Corp. The problem is that they did not say how much money they are providing. This announcement came just days after the Chinese authorities boosted the capital base of China Securities Finance to 100 billion yuan (US$16 billion) from 24 billion yuan.

Shanghai Composite - Daily OHLC Chart

Source: Barchart.com

Graphs are for illustrative and discussion purposes only. Please read important disclosures at the end of this commentary.

In effect, this amounts to the Chinese central bank buying stocks, something that the Japanese central bank has been doing (for Japanese stocks) for two years – trying to keep the stock market at a level it would not be able to maintain on its own. There were reports over the past week that Chinese police have been looking for malicious short sellers, a classic witch hunt that points the blame away from the self-inflicted nature of this financial disaster. There are also reports that stock brokers refused to take the sell orders of people that thought the two-day bounce at the end of last week was an opportunity to get out.

What innovative practices! Halt trading in half of the float in the stock market, take only buy orders, arrest malicious short sellers, and add more money from the central bank to help fuel a market rebound.

I don't think this rebound off the 200-day moving average on the Shanghai Composite will hold. The only thing that keeps stocks up over time are rising sales and earnings of the companies that issue them.  The parabolic move in the Shanghai Composite is not driven by rising sales and earnings but by spectacularly rising margin leverage.

Marginal Returns Chart

Graphs are for illustrative and discussion purposes only. Please read important disclosures at the end of this commentary.

Furthermore, official margin leverage does not include shadow banking leverage, which I believe is substantial. Shadow banking leverage also goes much farther – to the tune of 5X – than “normal” leverage, which stops at 2X. Also, Goldman Sachs Research concluded last week that, as of the beginning of June, “the balance of margin financing outstanding was RMB2.2tn, an estimated 12% of the free float market cap of marginable stocks and 3.5% of GDP – easily the highest in the history of global equity markets.” (Source: Businessstandard.com, July 8, 2015, “Why China’s Stock Market Meltdown Should Be A Cause for Global Worry”)  That was the state of affairs right before the Shanghai Composite began to unravel on June 12. Goldman also puts shadow banking leverage in the RMB 1.0-to-1.5 trillion range, which one could guesstimate using multiple sources for estimates of the size of the Chinese shadow banking system.

Global Equities Chart

Chart via ZeroHedge

Graphs are for illustrative and discussion purposes only. Please read important disclosures at the end of this commentary.

Given the above leverage estimates from multiple sources, I find it intriguing that on July 7 Bloomberg reported that Goldman Sachs strategist Kinger Lau, the bank’s China strategist in Hong Kong, “predicts the large-cap CSI 300 Index will rally 27% from Tuesday’s close over the next 12 months as government support measures boost investor confidence and monetary easing spurs economic growth. Leveraged positions aren’t big enough to trigger a market collapse, Lau says, and valuations have room to climb.”

“Leveraged positions are not big enough” to trigger a collapse?! How much bigger should they get?

I think the Shanghai Composite’s wheels have already come off the wagon. The Chinese authorities will not be able to inflate this epic bubble, no matter how long they keep half of the stock market float halted from trading or how many billions of yuan they throw at re-leveraging trades or how many police officers they send to round up “malicious short sellers.” It’s not the short sellers they should be after; it’s the 90 million gamblers that call themselves “investors” in A shares that bet their mortgaged farms on red.

I think that when this use of leverage in stock purchases – which the world has never before seen on such a scale – unwinds, the Shanghai Composite will end where it came from with a price target in the 1000-2000 range.  As for Mr. Kinger Lau, well, he should read some of his own firm’s research.

The Demand Side of the Commodity Equation

Much has been said about the surging supply of oil but what about the falling demand? Numerous hard commodities are feeling the pinch from the dramatic slowdown in the Chinese economy. The CRB Index – a major gauge for a broad basket of commodities – has declined on par with the decline during the 1997-1998 Asian Crisis. I think a big reason for that decline is the situation in China as the world’s #1 or #2 consumer of most major industrial commodities.

CRB Index Chart

Graphs are for illustrative and discussion purposes only. Please read important disclosures at the end of this commentary.

With a closed capital account, it is true that the A-share rout in Shanghai is less meaningful to investors outside of mainland China. ADRs and Hong Kong-listed mainland shares have not been nearly as volatile, but commodity markets where demand and supply drive prices have been reeling. Commodity prices are where they were at the time of the 2008 Wall Street crash when the stoppage of credit markets caused quite the global recession. Credit markets globally are working, but commodity prices show there is trouble in China. I think commodity prices in general can weaken quite a bit from the present depressed levels if the Chinese economy enters a deleveraging cycle.

Crude Oil WTI - Daily OHLC Chart

Source: Barchart.com

Graphs are for illustrative and discussion purposes only. Please read important disclosures at the end of this commentary.

This is a chart of December 2015 WTI crude oil. That December contract made the low for the year at $51.80 back in January when front-month futures were trading in the low 40s. Now $52 is, as they say, “key support” for that futures contract.  If the Chinese economy enters a recession courtesy of the unwinding of the credit bubble, Chinese authorities may not be able to prevent the crude oil market from unravelling; crude oil may get cut in half from the present level. Since crude oil is traded in New York, it is unlikely that the Chinese government would send Chinese police to round up the evil short sellers or that the PBOC would extend margin to crude oil futures traders to keep the price up.

Crude oil may have become a better indicator of the Chinese economy than the Shanghai Composite.

Growth Mail:

*All content in Income Mail is the opinion of Gary Alexander*

Top-Down and Bottoms-Up (Analysis) in Las Vegas

by Gary Alexander

“Venture-backed companies create 11% of all private sector jobs. They generate annual revenues equivalent to an astounding 21% of GDP. Indeed, the dozen largest tech companies were all venture-backed. Together those 12 companies are worth more than $2 trillion, more than all other tech companies combined.”   – Venture capitalist Peter Thiel, in “Zero to One,” page 89-90.

I’ve just returned from the Las Vegas Freedom Fest, founded by investment-oriented economist Mark Skousen.  Over 2500 registered attendees and nearly 300 speakers addressed political, economic, and investment topics on the main stage and in over 150 overlapping (competing) breakout sessions.

I was honored to moderate three panels in the main hall and three more in the breakout sessions. My two investment-oriented debates in the General Sessions were jam-packed and very informative, so let me give you a quick summary of those two debates.  The first was a “top-down” view of the market in a bulls vs. bears panel, while the second one resembled a bottoms-up analysis, the search for superior companies.

The Bears Defeat the Bulls – Once Again

The bears this year were Bert Dohmen, president and founder of Dohmen Capital Research, and Peter Schiff, CEO and Chief Global Strategist of Euro Pacific Capital.  The bulls were Alexander Green, Chief Investment Strategist of The Oxford Club, and Dennis Slothower, Founder, Alpine Capital Management.

Wall Street Logo ImageI began by asking the audience their market bias.  It turns out that about half were bears, one-fourth were bulls, and one-fourth were neutral, by a rough sampling of hands raised.  I congratulated the bulls on the panel (and in the audience) for being on the right side of history, so far.  I also reminded them of a time in October of 1990 when I moderated a similar panel at the New Orleans Investment Conference.  That day, only two of 500 audience members (0.4%) raised their hands as “bulls.”  At the time, the Japanese market had crashed after a parabolic rise (similar to China’s collapse in the last month) and the U.S. stock market was off about 20% in just three months, exacerbated by Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. The price of oil had more than doubled from $17 in July to $36 in October of 1990, so there was plenty to worry about.  The American Association of Individual Investors (AAII) all-time low in bullish sentiment (12%) was set November 16, 1990, but despite widespread fears, late 1990 was the market’s low for the 1990s.

In that 1990 panel, Mark Skousen and Bert Dohmen were the bulls – i.e., they got the market right at a time when the Dow was around 2400, its lowest point in the last 25 years.  The bears usually win these debates from the audience’s perspective, but the bulls win more often historically, via rising markets. It takes courage to be a bull when “everyone” around you says that you are out of step.  It’s like driving the wrong way in a One Way Street. Everyone is “honking” at you to turn around, sometimes yelling epithets.

What surprised me most about this year’s debate was the lack of “honking” and “epithets.”  The opening bear, Bert Dohmen, said he is a bull for the next 50 years but not over the next few years, since “bull markets tend to last an average seven years,” so he says “we’re near a top” now. The first bull, Alex Green, was also even-handed, saying that he is “not bullish, but optimistic.”  Then the super-bear Peter Schiff said he was more certain of a dollar crash than a market crash. He sees a new round of Fed easing (QE-4). The second bull, Dennis Slothower, agreed by predicting QE-4 would likely begin this October!

As you can surmise from my previous perma-bullish writings in Growth Mail, I align most closely with Alex Green’s positive positions. He said the market is nowhere near “bubble” territory, which requires extremes in both valuation and optimistic sentiment, which we don’t have now.  He listed some factors that favor a positive outlook: Low interest rates, making it cheaper to borrow; inflation missing in action; the U.S. dollar at an 8-year high; energy prices cut in half over the last year; a rebounding housing market; a declining jobless rate; household wealth at an all-time high, plus record corporate profits, record profit margins, and record profits as a percent of GDP.  As for protection against future market dangers, he favors diversification and asset allocation as protection against the inevitable market corrections.

When I asked each panelist what events could change his mind – from bull to bear or vice versa – Bert Dohmen said bluntly: “Nothing would turn me bullish.”  His candid stubbornness was reflected in the audience poll.  When I asked for applause from anyone who had changed their mind from bull to bear, we were greeted with total silence.  Likewise, when I asked if anyone had changed their mind by turning from bear to bull, there were no takers.  It was just like 1990 all over again – we changed nobody’s mind.

Monopoly vs. Competition – The Search for Great Companies

The Thinker Statue ImageMy Saturday morning debate pitted venture capitalist Peter Thiel and grocery chain CEO John Mackey.  Both are what I would call “philosophers of business.”  John Mackey co-wrote a 2013 book, “Conscious Capitalism: Liberating the Heroic Spirit of Business,” which won the Leonard E. Read “Book of the Year” award at the 2013 Freedom Fest.  Peter Thiel wrote “Zero to One: Notes on Startups, or How to Build the Future,” which came out in late 2014 and zoomed to #1 on the New York Times best-seller list.  (Thiel’s book was awarded this year’s Freedom Fest Book of the Year prize at the end of our debate.)

This debate centered around the proposition that “competition is over-rated.”  The idea originated from Thiel’s claim that “capitalism and competition are opposites.”  He claims that the world’s greatest companies are one-of-a-kind business ideas which never existed before entrepreneurs invented them.

Rather than trying to compete in an established market – like grocery stores, cars, or computers – he says the best companies create virtual (though not illegal) monopoly situations: They tend to corner a market.

Thiel says the government rewards such “creative monopolies” by granting patents to new inventions.  He says the history of progress in America “is a history of monopoly businesses replacing incumbents.”  In his most controversial statement, he said, “competition is a destructive force” rather than a sign of value.

Much of this debate depended on definitions: What is a “monopoly,” after all?  Some forms of monopolies are illegal under U.S. anti-trust law, so a company must be unique without calling itself a monopoly!  What Thiel calls a monopoly, I would say, is similar to what Warren Buffett called an “economic moat,” which Investopedia defines as “a business’ ability to maintain competitive advantage over its competitors.”  Yes, there are competitors, but they must bridge the superior company’s moat first.

John Mackey came out blazing, with a comprehensive series of Power Point slides contradicting Thiel’s thesis.  Rather than attacking competition, Mackey praised his own competitors.  In his book (on page 154), he says, “we become excited when a competitor does something better than we do…. We see it as an opportunity for improvement.”  He calls this process “creative imitation,” a smart business strategy.

Boat Rowers ImageMackey critiqued the concept that competition only implies “better products” or “lower prices.”  He cited positive customer experiences, which are difficult to measure in dollars and cents.  He focused on “win-win” relationships between the core “stakeholders” in any company – its customers, employees, investors, suppliers, communities, and even its competitors.  He favored evaluating companies on more than their quarterly earnings, including the ethics of the company, its working environment, its customer loyalty, and long-term earnings history vs. short-term indicators. He said great companies profit also from intangibles.

My front-row seat convinced me that both men were right, in their way.  We need to consider companies that have a wide moat – a huge competitive advantage.  No matter which direction the market moves over the longer term, we will likely be better off owning companies that have a unique advantage over others.

P.S. If you’re interested in seeing a fair cross-section of Freedom Fest speakers, including a short but spirited interview with John Mackey, check out this Friday’s “Stossel” show (July 17) on Fox Business News. It was taped last Thursday evening at Freedom Fest. I and about 2,000 others were in the audience.

Stat of the Week:

*All content in this “Stat of the Week” section of Market Mail represents the opinion of Louis Navellier of Navellier & Associates, Inc.*

The Service Economy Improves – in Every Category

by Louis Navellier

Despite last week’s chaotic news from China and Greece, the U.S. economic news was mostly positive.

On Monday, the Institute of Supply Management (ISM) reported that its non-manufacturing (services) index rose to 56 in June, up from 55.7 in May, significantly above economists’ consensus expectation of 55.7.  Especially encouraging was that ISM’s new orders component rose to 58.3 in June (up from 57.9 in May), while its production component rose to 61.5 in June (up from 59.5 in May).  Since any reading over 50 signals an expansion, 60+ is booming, so the ISM report was indicative of a robust service sector.

On Tuesday, the Commerce Department announced that the trade deficit in May rose to $41.9 billion as exports slipped 0.8% to $188.6 billion and imports dipped 0.1% to $230.5 billion.  Exports in the first five months of 2015 slipped 2.7% vs. the same period in 2014, so it appears that a strong U.S. dollar is taking a toll.  As a result, economists are anticipated to trim their second-quarter GDP estimates slightly.

Universal Product Code ImageA good share of GDP growth is attributable to improving consumer spending.  On Wednesday, the Fed announced that consumer credit rose at an annualized 5.7% pace in May.  According to Jeffrey Bartash, writing in MarketWatch on July 8, this new surge in credit mainly went to buy cars and trucks and pay for college loans.  He said that the amount of credit taken out by consumers has risen every month since August of 2011.  During this period, non-revolving credit (including long-term debt like student loans) surged at a 7% annual pace, while credit-card debt rose at a much smaller 2.1% annual pace.  Overall, the rise in consumer credit bodes well for second-quarter GDP – with the first estimate released on July 30.

FOMC Minutes Reveal Major Concerns

Last Wednesday, the minutes of the latest Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting, held June 16-17, were released, revealing major concerns about global turbulence and soft spots in the U.S. economy.  Specifically, the FOMC minutes noted, “uncertainty about whether Greece and its official creditors would reach an agreement and about the likely pace of economic growth abroad, particularly in China and other emerging market economies.”

The FOMC minutes also expressed concern about the slow pace of U.S. consumer spending.  Although several Fed members have publically said that the Fed should begin raising key interest rates as early as September, the actual FOMC minutes revealed that many Fed members remain uneasy about making the move.  Officially, the minutes said that the Fed “would need additional information indicating that economic growth was strengthening, that labor market conditions were continuing to improve, and that inflation was moving back toward the Committee’s objective” of 2%” before raising key interest rates.

Translated from Fedspeak, this essentially gives the Fed three excuses not to raise key interest rates.

On Tuesday, the IMF issued a press release (IMF Country Report No. 15/168), which reiterated their previous contention that the Fed should not raise rates until 2016.  The IMF said that the Fed should wait to move until it sees “clear signs of wage and price inflation.” Nigel Chalk, the IMF’s U.S. mission chief, said, “We feel there is space for them to wait,” and noted that inflation is far from the Fed’s 2% annual rate target.

Interestingly, on Friday, Fed Chairperson Janet Yellen in a speech to The City Club of Cleveland said she saw signs that the U.S. economy was improving and said she expects a rate hike to be needed this year.  Specifically, Yellen said, “I expect that it will be appropriate at some point later this year to take the first step to raise the federal-funds rate and thus begin normalizing monetary policy.”  Yellen was noticeably upbeat, saying, “I think that many of the fundamental factors underlying U.S. economic activity are solid and should lead to some pickup in the pace of economic growth in the coming years.  In particular, I anticipate that employment will continue to expand and the unemployment rate will decline further.”

Yellen added that the labor market has improved but “still has not fully recovered” so she may be waiting for average wage rate increases to accelerate before she recommends that the Fed raise key interest rates.

The most interesting comment that Yellen made during a question-and-answer session was that she refused to criticize the IMF’s call for the Fed to delay an interest rate hike until 2016.  Instead, she said the IMF’s opinion is shared by some Fed officials “and so it is part of the spectrum of opinion.”

Complicating matters further, the Greek crisis is making the euro weaker and the U.S. dollar stronger, which depresses commodity prices.  Furthermore, fears that China is slowing down are also weighing on commodity prices.  Since falling commodity prices are deflationary, there is virtually no inflation risk, so the Fed may very well agree with the IMF to postpone any key interest rate hike until inflation returns.

P.S.  I will be appearing on Fox Business TV with Charles Payne both today and tomorrow at 6:00 pm (Eastern Time), July 14 and 15.  I’ll be a part of a panel appearing for the entire program.  Check it out.


It should not be assumed that recommendations made in the future will be profitable or will equal the performance of the securities in this list. Click here to see the preceding 12 month trade report.

Although information in these reports has been obtained from and is based upon sources that Navellier believes to be reliable, Navellier does not guarantee its accuracy and it may be incomplete or condensed. All opinions and estimates constitute Navellier's judgment as of the date the report was created and are subject to change without notice. These reports are for informational purposes only and are not intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of a security. Any decision to purchase securities mentioned in these reports must take into account existing public information on such securities or any registered prospectus.

Past performance is no indication of future results. Investment in securities involves significant risk and has the potential for partial or complete loss of funds invested. It should not be assumed that any securities recommendations made by Navellier. in the future will be profitable or equal the performance of securities made in this report.

Dividend payments are not guaranteed. The amount of a dividend payment, if any, can vary over time and issuers may reduce dividends paid on securities in the event of a recession or adverse event affecting a specific industry or issuer.

None of the stock information, data, and company information presented herein constitutes a recommendation by Navellier or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities. Any specific securities identified and described do not represent all of the securities purchased, sold, or recommended for advisory clients. The reader should not assume that investments in the securities identified and discussed were or will be profitable.

Information presented is general information that does not take into account your individual circumstances, financial situation, or needs, nor does it present a personalized recommendation to you. Individual stocks presented may not be suitable for you. Investment in securities involves significant risk and has the potential for partial or complete loss of funds invested. Investment in fixed income securities has the potential for the investment return and principal value of an investment to fluctuate so that an investor's holdings, when redeemed, may be worth less than their original cost.

One cannot invest directly in an index. Results presented include the reinvestment of all dividends and other earnings.

Past performance is no indication of future results.

FEDERAL TAX ADVICE DISCLAIMER: As required by U.S. Treasury Regulations, you are informed that, to the extent this presentation includes any federal tax advice, the presentation is not intended or written by Navellier to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties. Navellier does not advise on any income tax requirements or issues. Use of any information presented by Navellier is for general information only and does not represent tax advice either express or implied. You are encouraged to seek professional tax advice for income tax questions and assistance.

IMPORTANT NEWSLETTER DISCLOSURE: The performance results for investment newsletters that are authored or edited by Louis Navellier, including Louis Navellier's Growth Investor, Louis Navellier's Breakthrough Stocks, Louis Navellier's Accelerated Profits, and Louis Navellier's Platinum Club, are not based on any actual securities trading, portfolio, or accounts, and the newsletters' reported performances should be considered mere "paper" or proforma performance results. Navellier & Associates, Inc. does not have any relation to or affiliation with the owner of these newsletters. There are material differences between Navellier & Associates' Investment Products and the InvestorPlace Media, LLC newsletter portfolios authored by Louis Navellier. The InvestorPlace Media, LLC newsletters and advertising materials authored by Louis Navellier typically contain performance claims that do not include transaction costs, advisory fees, or other fees a client may incur. As a result, newsletter performance should not be used to evaluate Navellier Investment Products. The owner of the newsletters is InvestorPlace Media, LLC and any questions concerning the newsletters, including any newsletter advertising or performance claims, should be referred to InvestorPlace Media, LLC at (800) 718-8289.

Please note that Navellier & Associates and the Navellier Private Client Group are managed completely independent of the newsletters owned and published by InvestorPlace Media, LLC and written and edited by Louis Navellier, and investment performance of the newsletters should in no way be considered indicative of potential future investment performance for any Navellier & Associates separately managed account portfolio. Potential investors should consult with their financial advisor before investing in any Navellier Investment Product.

Navellier claims compliance with Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS). To receive a complete list and descriptions of Navellier's composites and/or a presentation that adheres to the GIPS standards, please contact Navellier or click here. It should not be assumed that any securities recommendations made by Navellier & Associates, Inc. in the future will be profitable or equal the performance of securities made in this report. Request here a list of recommendations made by Navellier & Associates, Inc. for the preceding twelve months, please contact Tim Hope at (775) 785-9416.

Marketmail Archives Trade Summary

It should not be assumed that recommendations made in the future will be profitable or will equal the performance of the securities in this list. Click here to see the preceding 12 month trade report.

Although information in these reports has been obtained from and is based upon sources that Navellier believes to be reliable, Navellier does not guarantee its accuracy and it may be incomplete or condensed. All opinions and estimates constitute Navellier's judgment as of the date the report was created and are subject to change without notice. These reports are for informational purposes only and are not intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of a security. Any decision to purchase securities mentioned in these reports must take into account existing public information on such securities or any registered prospectus.

Past performance is no indication of future results. Investment in securities involves significant risk and has the potential for partial or complete loss of funds invested. It should not be assumed that any securities recommendations made by Navellier. in the future will be profitable or equal the performance of securities made in this report.

Dividend payments are not guaranteed. The amount of a dividend payment, if any, can vary over time and issuers may reduce dividends paid on securities in the event of a recession or adverse event affecting a specific industry or issuer.

None of the stock information, data, and company information presented herein constitutes a recommendation by Navellier or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities. Any specific securities identified and described do not represent all of the securities purchased, sold, or recommended for advisory clients. The reader should not assume that investments in the securities identified and discussed were or will be profitable.

Information presented is general information that does not take into account your individual circumstances, financial situation, or needs, nor does it present a personalized recommendation to you. Individual stocks presented may not be suitable for you. Investment in securities involves significant risk and has the potential for partial or complete loss of funds invested. Investment in fixed income securities has the potential for the investment return and principal value of an investment to fluctuate so that an investor's holdings, when redeemed, may be worth less than their original cost.

One cannot invest directly in an index. Results presented include the reinvestment of all dividends and other earnings.

Past performance is no indication of future results.

FEDERAL TAX ADVICE DISCLAIMER: As required by U.S. Treasury Regulations, you are informed that, to the extent this presentation includes any federal tax advice, the presentation is not intended or written by Navellier to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties. Navellier does not advise on any income tax requirements or issues. Use of any information presented by Navellier is for general information only and does not represent tax advice either express or implied. You are encouraged to seek professional tax advice for income tax questions and assistance.

IMPORTANT NEWSLETTER DISCLOSURE: The performance results for investment newsletters that are authored or edited by Louis Navellier, including Louis Navellier's Growth Investor, Louis Navellier's Breakthrough Stocks, Louis Navellier's Accelerated Profits, and Louis Navellier's Platinum Club, are not based on any actual securities trading, portfolio, or accounts, and the newsletters' reported performances should be considered mere "paper" or proforma performance results. Navellier & Associates, Inc. does not have any relation to or affiliation with the owner of these newsletters. There are material differences between Navellier & Associates' Investment Products and the InvestorPlace Media, LLC newsletter portfolios authored by Louis Navellier. The InvestorPlace Media, LLC newsletters and advertising materials authored by Louis Navellier typically contain performance claims that do not include transaction costs, advisory fees, or other fees a client may incur. As a result, newsletter performance should not be used to evaluate Navellier Investment Products. The owner of the newsletters is InvestorPlace Media, LLC and any questions concerning the newsletters, including any newsletter advertising or performance claims, should be referred to InvestorPlace Media, LLC at (800) 718-8289.

Please note that Navellier & Associates and the Navellier Private Client Group are managed completely independent of the newsletters owned and published by InvestorPlace Media, LLC and written and edited by Louis Navellier, and investment performance of the newsletters should in no way be considered indicative of potential future investment performance for any Navellier & Associates separately managed account portfolio. Potential investors should consult with their financial advisor before investing in any Navellier Investment Product.

Navellier claims compliance with Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS). To receive a complete list and descriptions of Navellier's composites and/or a presentation that adheres to the GIPS standards, please contact Navellier or click here. It should not be assumed that any securities recommendations made by Navellier & Associates, Inc. in the future will be profitable or equal the performance of securities made in this report. Request here a list of recommendations made by Navellier & Associates, Inc. for the preceding twelve months, please contact Tim Hope at (775) 785-9416.

Marketmail Archives