Tag Archives: transactionname

A Peek Under The Hood Of The New O’Leary Dividend ETF

Summary Kevin O’Leary, of Shark Tank fame, recently released his first U.S.-listed dividend ETF. The fund selects approximately 142 stocks based on factors that include quality, volatility, and yield. This passive index approach underscores a unique dividend oriented portfolio with solid fundamentals. Kevin O’Leary, of the Shark Tank fame, has morphed into one of the most polarizing investment figures on reality TV. Now he is taking his talents off-camera by releasing his first U.S.-listed exchange-traded fund focused on dividend paying stocks. The O’Shares FTSE U.S. Quality Dividend ETF (NYSEARCA: OUSA ) debuted this week to a great deal of intrigue by the financial media. Whether you love or hate O’Leary for his no-nonsense criticism and direct business style, this new ETF is certainly worth a look for serious income investors . According to the fund company’s website , “The Fund is designed to be a core investment holding that seeks to provide cost efficient access to a portfolio of large-cap and mid-cap high quality, low volatility, dividend paying companies in the U.S. selected based on certain fundamental metrics.” To achieve that end result, OUSA follows the FTSE U.S. Qual/Vol/Yield Factor 5% Capped Index. This fundamentally driven methodology selects stocks based on three core factors – quality, volatility and yield. The final portfolio is made up of 142 dividend paying companies with an average yield of 3.20%. Top holdings include well-known names such as Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ ) and Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM ). In addition, each of the underlying constituents is capped at a maximum 5% allocation so as not to significantly overweight a single position . I think it’s an important distinction to make that O’Leary is essentially the face of this company and not involved in any direct investment recommendations. This ETF is designed to follow a strict passively managed index without worrying over deviating into uncharted waters as some active funds can do. The current next expense ratio of OUSA is listed at 0.48%, which is on the high side for a passive ETF. Nevertheless, the fundamental selection criteria (read: smart beta) is one of the reasons that the fund company may feel justified to charge more for its ETF versus its peers. After analyzing the top 10 holdings of OUSA, my initial conclusion is that this ETF falls closest in nature to the iShares Core High Dividend ETF (NYSEARCA: HDV ). Both funds share 8 of their top 10 holdings and are dedicated to a more concentrated mix of high quality dividend stocks. HDV currently has $4.5 billion in assets, an expense ratio of 0.12%, and a 30-day SEC yield of 3.90%. It’s worth noting, however, that although there are similarities between the two funds, there are also significant differences too. HDV has very high asset concentrations in its top holdings, which currently make up 59% of the portfolio. The top 10 holdings in OUSA make up just 38% of its asset allocation. In addition, HDV has a great deal more energy and telecom exposure that is supplanted by technology and health care in OUSA. These portfolio weightings are likely to change over time as market factors and other conditions evolve. Vanguard investors can breathe easy that the Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF (NYSEARCA: VYM ) shares 7 of the same top 10 holdings in OUSA as well. However, VYM covers a much broader spectrum of over 400 stocks. The Bottom Line Despite its higher expense ratio, OUSA appears to be constructed of a very solid mix of dividend paying stocks through a dependable index provider. Currently, this ETF does offer enough differentiating factors to make it worthy of your consideration when comparing equity income funds . It will be interesting to follow how much initial attention is generated in OUSA based on fund flow data, as well as how the portfolio adapts over time. The market for dividend ETFs is certainly filled with many beloved products and attracting attention may prove to be a difficult battle. According to prospectus filings, O’Shares is set to debut four additional international-focused dividend ETFs in the near future as well. That will help round out the fund family and offer strategies designed to excel under differentiating circumstances. Disclosure: I am/we are long VYM, HDV. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. Additional disclosure: David Fabian, FMD Capital Management, and/or clients may hold positions in the ETFs and mutual funds mentioned above. The commentary does not constitute individualized investment advice. The opinions offered herein are not personalized recommendations to buy, sell, or hold securities.

Just Like Jon Snow, Alpha Is Not Dead

Summary Don’t fight the Fed. Military lessons from Eastern Europe. Find your Beta and Live Happily Ever After. Is Jon Snow Really Dead? I am big fan of the show Game of Thrones and the big topic this summer is whether Jon Snow died in the season finale? I will use the power of logical reasoning to come to a somewhat definitive answer to that question. Fans of the show know that Jon Snow is Eddard Stark’s bastard. This raises the first question – Is it possible that a man like Ned Stark, the epitome of honor, would cheat in the first year of his marriage to the woman bearing his first child? Not likely. So Jon Snow for sure isn’t his own son. He is somebody else’s son that Ned is trying to raise and protect as his own. As fans of the show might be vaguely aware, the Seven Kingdoms are currently in a big mess because of the monumental conflict between House Baratheon and House Targaryen. The conflict is Trojan in nature as it arises from the battle of two powerful men for the love of a beautiful woman. The woman in question is Ned Stark’s sister Lyanna. Lyanna was betrothed to Robert Baratheon, but during the tournament at Harrenhal, Rhaegar Targaryen, the crown prince and winner of the tournament gives the honorary rose to her instead of his own wife. At some point, Lyanna, a strong independent minded woman, leaves Robert and joins Rhaegar in King’s Landing. Not much else is known, but that at some point Robert Baratheon leads a revolt against the Targaryens to “free” Lyanna from Rhaegar. And soon after Rhaegar is killed in the battle of the Trident by Robert, she dies while giving birth. The child supposedly also died at birth. Or did it? Right around that time Ned Stark shows up in Winterfell with a bastard. A descendant with Targaryen (dragon) blood and Stark (First Men) blood is the perfect candidate to become the Azor Ahai – the mythical one who can bring light to the world of the Seven Kingdoms from the darkness that the Others are about to plunge it in. So while the producers of the show swear that he is dead, an observer who uses the power of reasoning should know better. Just Like Jon Snow, Alpha Is Not Dead A couple of days ago Robert Shiller published a great article called The Mirage of the Financial Singularity in which he discusses the fascinating topic of whether Alpha will eventually go to zero for every imaginable investment strategy? Before I delve into the topic, I want to say that I am a great fan of Mr. Shiller. He is the creator of a lot of indexes by which we measure value today and the incredible thing about his models, indexes and research is the astounding simplicity and intellectual purity of his models. His CAPE model/spreadsheet takes exactly 1 minute to comprehend and can be understood by a 3rd grader. While I am sure the math to get to it is pretty complicated, the end result is far from complicated. A lot of laws in nature and finance have similar properties. They are hard to come up but once discovered their rules are amazingly simple. The gravitation formula is not for the faint of heart, but its final outcome is remarkably simple – an apple left on its own will fall down. Same with finance, a lot goes into calculating enterprise value and fundamental asset valuation, but at the end of the day the asset is either cheap or expensive. In my view, Shiller’s view of asset pricing can be boiled down to the following simple formula: Asset Market Price = Fundamental Valuation + Sentiment Premium Fundamental Valuation is what the asset price should be based on cash flows, underlying asset valuations, etc. Sentiment Premium is simply the difference between the current Market Price and the Fundamental Valuation. The Market Price and Fundamental Valuation are almost always different numbers simply because the asset trades on a market and the price paid is subject to negotiation. In other words, market price has nothing to do with the laws of cash flow analysis and everything to do with the perception and positioning of the two market participants who have to agree on a price. The reason can be many: A buyer can be overly optimistic/pessimistic about the value of a stock based on his personal experience. A seller may be in urgent need for a capital and is willing to part at a cheaper price. Central bank floods the market with liquidity leading to institutional buyers having more cash to spend on an asset than is fundamentally reasonable. High taxation removes capital from buyers and they end up bidding lower. The reasons are many, I will not cover them all. I will let a guy with a PhD do that. The point I want to make is very simple: The Sentiment Premium is almost never zero. Warren Buffett approach to investing can be summarized very simply with the following simple formula: When Sentiment Premium < 0, Buy Asset It can totally be replicated by a modern day computer. The software program can be built in a few minutes, right? Except that it can't. What should also be obvious is that Warren Buffet's success is not just the simple application of that rule. It is what he is actively doing to the asset once it is purchased: Changes to management Creation of new markets and products Optimization of an inefficient business process Expansion of a regional business to national level There is a lot that Warren Buffett does in the realm of asset management that is the prime reason for his success. If he didn't manage his assets well, the fact that he bought the assets at discount does not mean much. The price of a mismanaged asset can always go down to zero (see Kodak). Warren Buffett is not the only one who practices this investing style. The management of every good company in the S&P 500 practices that investing style. There are many examples. America is littered with successful investors. The fact that in a free market the Sentiment Premium is almost always not zero does not mean that markets are inefficient. Markets are extremely efficient; now more than ever. It just means that market participants don't evaluate stocks efficiently. Market participants are human beings; or computer algorithms written by human beings. Markets are a conglomerate of millions of inefficient human decision makers with limited memory capacity driven by the biochemical reactions that happen in their brains that day. God forbid they end up being happy at the same time based on serotonin releases from their brains because it's a holiday weekend. You can hardly find a down holiday week for decades if ever. So long as there are free markets, there will be a Sentiment Premium for each individual asset and thus there will be Alpha to be made. Just like John Snow, Alpha is not dead and it simply can't die. It's the nature of the markets. Don't Fight The Fed While financial markets are most certainly efficient and represent the most efficient structures ever designed by human beings, they are also very, very manipulated. The market participants can be broken down into the following 4 major categories: Governments/Central Banks Institutional Investors (Public/Private Pension Funds, College Endowments, Corporate Treasury) Market Makers/Banks Retail Investors This is roughly the Commitments of Traders report except the "Large Speculators" is broken down a little further, because there is a distinct difference in the size of these groups. While Banks/Market Makers deal with billions to tens of billions, Institutional Investors deal with ten to hundreds of billions and Governments/Central Banks deal with hundreds of billions to trillions. Each one of these is an order of magnitude bigger and the weight of its Sentiment Premium dwarfs that of the remaining market participants. As a result, what Central Banks assign as a Sentiment Premium for an asset class is about the only thing that matters. Okay, it is not 100%, it is roughly 90%, but one thing should be crystal clear is that 10% doesn't move the needle much except on a short term basis. This is a profound realization. What the Harvard Endowment thinks doesn't matter. What Goldman Sachs thinks doesn't matter. What Black Rock thinks doesn't matter. What the Fed thinks is the only thing that matters. So how do we make this realization work for us as retail investors? Retail investors are a speck on the whale that is the financial market. We have to utilize alternative asymmetric thinking in order to survive. Military Lessons from Eastern Europe I am somewhat of a fan of military history. While I am certainly not a military expert, I do have favorite battles. The 300 Spartans is one of them, as their 80 to 1 kill ratio over 3 days is probably unmatched in military history based on the weaponry available. However, my favorite battle is the virtually unknown Battle of the Shipka Pass in 1877 between the Ottoman Turks and Russia. In that battle, 5,000 strategically placed Russians and Bulgarians on St. Nicholas Peak withstood frontal assault by 30,000 Turks for 3 days. The Turks who were militarily superior at the time and better organized suffered a 3-to-1 kill ratio. It is said that even the dead fought for the defenders as the living would throw the dead bodies down the slope. After losing that battle, the Turks were unable to combine their two main battalions while the Russians were able to and General Gourko then routed the Turks all the way to Constantinople resulting the formation of the present day Eastern European countries of Romania, Serbia, and Bulgaria with the peace Treaty of San Stefano. The military philosophy in Eastern Europe emphasizes asymmetric thinking and the value of positioning, selectivity and misdirection. Eastern Europe is a conglomerate of small countries each of which has had to fight much bigger and well-funded opponents to gain its independence. You cannot throw numbers at an opponent and your technology is vastly inferior. You have to protect every single military asset at all costs whether it's a soldier or a weapon. You have to minimize your losses and maximize your gains. You have to hide and misdirect. You have to selectively hack your way at the corners and intersections of the enemy's military organization at just the right times and decapitate and turn against them what makes them strong - their communication, organization and technological superiority. Break down the communications, disrupt the supply chain, blow up the provisions and pretty soon, it doesn't make sense for them to continue their campaign. Guerilla warfare at its finest. That's why when you go to Eastern Europe, in a week you can go to 10 countries whose total territory is the state of Ohio. But if they want their independence, who can say no? The military costs are simply prohibitive and Ukraine is about to find that out nowadays in their conflict with the Donetsk Republic. Find your Beta and Live Happily Ever After The position of the small Eastern European nation is the where the Retail Investor finds himself today. The retail crowd is vastly out-teched by the computer and automation capability at the institutional players. They don't have the man power to do exhaustive research on thousands of assets. They are an unorganized crowd against a very well organized opponent (institutions coordinate every day). And their capital is relatively insignificant. It is very difficult for retail investors to succeed at the traditional game of stock picking. Yes some will, but 90% of them won't. While Alpha is a tough find for the retail investor, Beta sure isn't! There are plenty of markets and ETFs to pick from. A retail investor has to think alternatively and asymmetrically. How so? Let's apply some Eastern European military strategy here: 1. Carefully select your strikes Limit your coverage - trade ETFs not stocks. If you can't cover and follow 5000 issues in the broad US stock market, focus on what you can cover and follow. There are about 60+ ETFs that cover all asset classes, industries and major countries. A lot less work to deal with. It is scientifically proven that a portfolio of 15+ stocks generally matches the benchmark. In other words, if your portfolio is too diversified, you're fooling yourself that you are beating your benchmark. Even if you beat it, you can do pretty much the same with a lot less work. Might as well buy the NASDAQ and not worry if the CEO if the company you follow resigns tomorrow plunging your stock 25% before you can even place a trade (see Twitter for the latest example). 2. Position yourself well Invest only in ETFs that are trending up. The slope of the 50 day moving average is an excellent pointer to the general trend in an ETF. If the slope is positive, it is good idea to buy the dips. Use the media to your advantage. The Fed, Bank of Japan, ECB are well covered. If they print money, just invest where money is being printed. Use currency-hedge ETFs. You literally follow the money with the risk factored out. It's a no brainer and it only takes the 10 minutes to read the Wall Street Journal headline every day, which you do anyways. 3. Minimize your losses Utilize stop losses and buy on drawdowns. Asset classes fluctuate, but unlike stocks it is rare that they go down 50% hard quickly. ETFs go down but not nearly as fast as individual stocks. You have time to react. In general, if you buy an ETF at 50% discount from its high, it is unlikely you will suffer 50% in losses. If the general trend of the ETF is down (the slope of the 50dma is negative) stay away until the trend turns positive. Once the ETF trend starts going up, it is hard to stop the advance. 4. Maximize your gains Use moderate leverage. If an ETF is trending up and goes up 30% in a year, you can goose your returns safely by using the leveraged version of that ETF. Such a 3x ETF will give you 90% that year which the same as buying Facebook at 38 and holding to 70 for a year; with a fraction of the risk to boot as you're not buying an individual stock! 5. You don't have to win the battle to win the war Eastern Europe is littered with countries whose armies lost every single battle they fought. However, each loss was so expensive for the winner that it rendered them ineffective in governing the territory. Hence, you get to see 20 different Eastern European countries the size of Brooklyn waving flags at the Olympics. Similarly in investing you have to always remember that you're in it to build wealth not to beat the stock market. Your goal is to accumulate wealth, whether you are doing this at a rate faster or slower than the S&P 500 is immaterial. You are not a hedge fund manager, you don't charge 2 and 20 and you don't need to prove anything to anybody. Your only goals are to not lose money and have more money each year than the prior year. Keep making 10% a year and pretty soon you won't know your wealth even though you rarely beat the market. All you need to do is make 10%, when the market loses 50% like in 2008 and you'll be far ahead in terms of total performance for a long, long time. 6. Use the strength of the opponent against him So now that you have picked 4-5 ETFs that are trending up and have leveraged them moderately, you need to find an asymmetrical investment vehicle that can smoothen up your portfolio performance. I can think of one such vehicle - XIV , the short volatility ETF. The Fed is in an ongoing war with deflation and they seek to cheapen government debts overtime by devaluing the currency; in the process of doing that, they seek to neuter asset price fluctuations or as otherwise known - volatility. The Fed actively seeks to suppress volatility. You can invest along with the Fed by shorting volatility or investing in XIV. XIV has had quite a few years of 100%+ returns or 100%+ intra-year streaks. Learn how to invest in XIV and your portfolio couldn't be happier. Disclosure: I am/we are long XIV. (More...) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Everyone Should Consider These Crisis-Immune Stocks

Summary After six years of rising share prices in the United States, I start to feel a little uncomfortable with current valuations. In this article I try to find out which companies and industries are likely to do well when the going gets tough in financial markets.. I calculated the share returns of American S&P 500 companies and European Stoxx 600 companies and industries during the financial crisis in 2008. I intend to increase the weights of stocks in my portfolio that are active in defensive sectors like consumer staples, health care, utility and energy. Readers can look for their own crash-resistant company in a spreadsheet list that is provided at the end of the article. My dilemma is simple. Professor’s Jeremy Siegel’s plea that stocks are the best asset class to own in the long run is very convincing (please read his brilliant books Stocks in the long run and The Future for Investors ). However, at the current valuations I strongly believe long run future returns will be low single digit at best for the S&P 500 as a whole, see this previous article of me. The simple answer to this dilemma is that I should look for the right stocks. I argued in earlier articles that I like to invest in companies that have their earnings protected by a wide moat such Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT ), Nestlé ( OTCPK:NSRGY ) and Unilever (NYS: UN ). In my view these companies will be able to generate handsome returns despite above average valuations, because they can invest every dollar they retain out of profits in a very lucrative way. In previous articles, I reasoned that investors should ignore short term price fluctuations if they are convinced the earnings power – that is the possibility to reinvest retained earnings in a lucrative way – has not changed. As long as the sustainable competitive advantage of the company – or what super investor Warren Buffett calls a moat – is unaltered, there is absolutely no reason to sell your shares. This point of view makes perfect sense in theory. In practice when shares plummet day after day and everybody thinks the end of civilization is near, it is extremely difficult to assess the long term earnings power of a company. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to find companies that are great investments and tend to do well when things get tough in financial markets. Forget useless math If have read dozens of (academic) papers and books on the concept of risk. The trouble is that most of the metrics used in finance – think volatility, beta, Value at Risk, etc – are close to useless in the real world because they explicitly or implicitly assume share returns are distributed according to a so called normal distribution (almost all the returns are close to the average). In the real world investors are faced with outliers, or returns that are light years away from the average. Although the academic world tries to construct models that try to deal with outliers, the approach I use to capture risk of individual shares in this article is extremely simple (the way I prefer things to be). I calculated the returns of stocks in particular sectors and individual stocks in the United States and Europe from top to bottom during the credit crisis. To be honest, the saying ‘financial markets have no memory’ seems applicable to me. I was a little shocked by the returns that were spitted out by my Bloomberg terminal doing the analysis. In the credit crisis the S&P 500 and Stoxx 600 – the 600 biggest European companies by market capitalization – lost 55.2 percent and 58.2 percent respectively of their value from top to bottom during this period. Stomach this! Stocks lost more than half of their value during the credit crisis Index Top Bottom Total Return S&P 500 index 10-9-2007 9-3-2009 -55.2% Stoxx 600 1-6-2007 9-3-2009 -58.2% Source: Bloomberg. Nowhere to hide I suspect that most readers are familiar with the story about the statistician who drowned in a lake with an average depth of six inches. Averages can be dangerous as the distribution around the average can be wide. Therefore, I grouped the companies in industry segments to see how each segment reacted during the crisis. I use the Global Industry Classification Standard (GICs, you can find which industry group belongs to which sector on this wiki page). Which American industry did best and worst during the credit crisis? Returns of S&P 500 Companies Returns of Stoxx 600 companies Sector # Mean Rec. return Sector # Mean Rec. return Consumer staples 33 -33,1% 49,4% Energy 23 -32,7% 48,5% Health care 50 -39,1% 64,3% Health care 36 -33,9% 51,4% Utility 29 -40,9% 69,3% Telecom services 19 -35,2% 54,3% Energy 37 -49,2% 96,8% Consumer staples 44 -36,8% 58,3% Materials 26 -50,5% 101,9% Utility 25 -38,8% 63,3% Information technology 62 -51,2% 105,1% Materials 48 -50,3% 101,1% Consumer discretionary 77 -53,6% 115,4% Information technology 27 -52,3% 109,7% S&P 500 -55,2% 123,3% Industrials 111 -54,7% 120,6% Industrials 60 -55,8% 126,0% Stoxx 600 -58,2% 139,0% Telecom services 6 -56,3% 129,0% Consumer discretionary 81 -60,1% 150,7% Financials 86 -68,1% 213,4% Financials 121 -64,6% 182,1% Source: Bloomberg. Return represents total shareholder return, including dividends. # represents the number of companies within each sector. Recovery return is the return necessary to recover your initial investment. Given the nature of the last big crisis I suspect few readers will be surprised by the worst performing sector: financials. Financial companies lost a staggering 68.1 percent in the U.S. and 64.6 percent in Europe of their market value from top to bottom. Note that in some cases the investors had to deal with the worst thing that could happen to a value investor: a permanent loss of capital. For example Lehman Brothers went bankrupt and both Bear Stearns (JP Morgan) and Wachovia (Wells Fargo) were absorbed by other investment banks. It is good news for investors that the top performing sectors are also fairly similar on both sides of the ocean. The sector consumer staples (mainly food, beverages, tobacco and personal products), Health care (equipment, pharmaceuticals and biotech), Utility and Energy are all represented in the top five in both the U.S. and Europe. The average returns of these sectors are all above the average of the market. Do not get me wrong: the performance was still horrible. This was the scary thing of the credit crisis: every share and asset class – even gold! – collapsed due to the a complete loss of faith in the financial system. But – and this is in my opinion very important – even in the credit crisis it still mattered a lot if the value of your portfolio dropped by 33 percent (fully invested in consumer staples), 55 percent (invested in the index) or 68 percent (fully invested in financials). Let’s do the math. If the value of a portfolio drops by 33 percent an investors needs a return of about 50 percent to get back to where he or she started. But if you lost 55 percent or 68 percent of value an investor needs a return of respectively 123 percent (factor 2.5) and 213 percent (factor 4.3!) to recover you initial investment value. You find the ‘recovery returns’ of each individual sector in the table above. As a side note I like to inform you that I also examined the returns of each industry in the aftermath of the burst of the internet bubble in 2000 in both the U.S. and Europe. In that period the same defensive sectors outperformed the market (most of these sectors even realized positive returns as the loss in market capitalizations was concentrated in internet companies). A quest for cheap crash proof stocks After a 6 year period in which markets have treated us well – again leading to expensive stocks – it makes sense to me to increase the weights in my portfolio to stocks that tend to do well in downturns. Therefore, I am looking for stocks that are active in the consumer staples, health care, utility and energy sector. However, although I favor the simple over the complex, there is always the risk of taking too many shortcuts. An investor always runs the risk that stocks that were resilient in 2007 will prove to be horrible investments during the next crash. The thing I do to deal with this problem is to look at valuations. As a value investor, I believe the price you pay determines the return of a financial asset. This implies an investor can pay too much, even for the most defensive stock. My method to find crash proof shares is fairly straightforward. In this spreadsheet you find the names of the shares of the S&P and Stoxx companies, its sector and return during the credit crisis (source: Bloomberg). Moreover, I added the P/E-ratio in 2007 (pre-crisis) and the current P/E of every share. In my quest for resilient stocks I look for shares in defensive sectors that have P/E-ratios that are similar, preferably lower, than before the crisis. In the last step an investor should investigate if there is a reason for the low valuation. The investors should for instance examine if the nature of the business have changed permanently in the past 6 years due to divestitures or acquisitions. Investors should also try to assess whether the markets for its end products have structurally changed due to disruptive entry of new competitors (although I believe one can find value in oil today, some investors believe this could be the case with oil stocks). I additionally cannot stress enough the importance of a strong balance sheet. In the aftermath of the credit crisis, I have seen billions of shareholder value getting destroyed by overleveraged companies that faced a decline in cash flows and had to raise capital at very unattractive terms for existing shareholders to survive. Wal-Mart as an example It is beyond the scope of this article to examine individual stocks in great detail. For now I only want to have a close look at the best performing sector in the U.S. during the credit crisis: consumer staples. The best performing stock in this sector is retail giant Wal-mart. To me it is absolutely amazing this stock gained 7 percent in the worst investment climate ever. In this long read article, I extensively argue that Wal-Mart is an attractive investment at the current valuation. After my analysis of today, I decided to increase my position in the company. I not only expect attractive long run returns of Wal-mart, I also expect the stock will be resilient in an unfortunate scenario where markets start turning against us. Thanks for reading, and I hope you find some great stocks yourself by scrolling down the list — please let me know which. Editor’s Note: This article discusses one or more securities that do not trade on a major U.S. exchange. Please be aware of the risks associated with these stocks. Disclosure: I am/we are long WMT. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.