| Dear Subscriber, If you think the winds of change in Washington — both on the political scene and at the Fed — can have a big impact on the financial markets, wait till you see what can happen in the coming political storm! For a solid sneak preview, I invited world champion pollster John Zogby to an emergency briefing at our Florida office — along with strategists Richard Mogey and Monty Agarwal. Here's the edited transcript ... Decision 2010: New Dangers,
New Profit Opportunities!
With Martin Weiss, John Zogby,
Monty Agarwal and Richard Mogey Martin Weiss: On November 2, Americans will go to the polls to decide their destiny. They will vote for a continuation in the way our government has been fighting the financial crisis. Or they will vote for a revolution in the government's role. The entire world is watching, and make no mistake: Global investors are already voting with their money, already dumping the U.S. dollar, already rushing to nearly any asset that can go up when the dollar goes down. Will these trends continue after the elections? Or will they suddenly reverse? How can you protect your wealth and build it in the face of global investor reactions to our elections? What are the most profitable enduring trends ahead? We will address each of these questions in this hour. Our first goal is to give you an accurate sneak preview of the probable outcome of these elections and to determine how the results are likely to impact the economy. And with that in mind, we have invited a special guest, John Zogby. He's the author of the New York Times bestseller The Way We Will Be. USA Today says John is America's "most accurate pollster." The Washington Post proclaimed "All hail Zogby, the maverick predictor who beat us all." And he is on hand with us now to give us his insights, including the results of our first-ever Weiss-Zogby national poll! Our second goal is to show you how you can use this advance intelligence to go for substantial profits beginning BEFORE the elections! That's why I have also asked two additional guests to join us: Richard Mogey, the Research Director for the Foundation for the Study of Cycles — whose cyclical data has accurately identified nearly every major turn in the markets for the past four decades. And Monty Agarwal who has managed hedge funds for 12 years without a single losing year. Now, let's go straight to the big news — the results from the Weiss/Zogby National Poll! This poll is unique in a very important way. We asked voters not only what kind of candidates they will vote for but also about their opinion regarding key economic policies and investments — mortgage bailouts, bank bailouts, stocks, bonds, gold and more. John, thank you for helping us conduct this unique poll! And thank you for changing your hectic schedule of appearances to fly down here to Florida. John Zogby: It's a pleasure to be here, and the timing couldn't be better. Martin: Yes, we have the convergence of two factors: The unusually big role that the government has played in the financial crisis ... and a major shift in voter sentiment about the government's role. Now, in this election, Americans will effectively be voting to bless — or to condemn — the government's battle against the financial crisis. John: I must say there is a record level of intensity and widespread anger about key aspects of recent government policies. First of all, we asked voters what they think about the economy and we found that most voters do not believe or do not accept Washington's claims about the recovery. Only 38% say the economy is recovering slowly but surely. Meanwhile, 58.3% say the economy is already sinking into another recession or is still in a long-term recession. Martin: Peg, one of our readers, is apparently in the latter group. She writes: "We are not caught in a recession. We are caught in a growing DEPRESSION, and our big houses are the home to our extended families — like the Waltons." Here's another reader in that camp, who writes: "A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose your job. And the only reason the folks in Washington think we have neither is because they and their neighbors across the aisle still have their jobs." He says his intent is to help fix that particular problem come November. Plus, we have a question from Steven for you: "John, what actions of the existing government are most disliked by the American people?" John: We asked voters very specific questions about that. We asked, for instance: "If someone is having difficulty meeting their mortgage payments, do you think the government should provide financial assistance to help them avoid foreclosure, or not?" Only 27.5% of likely voters said "Yes, help them avoid foreclosure." But double that number — 55.1% — said "No, don't help them." In other words, for each voter who said yes, two people said no! We also asked voters about bank bailouts: "If another big bank fails, do you think the government should bail it out or let it fail?" More than 80% said "let it fail." Only 6.6% said "bail it out." So for every voter in favor of bank bailouts, there were 12 voters against the bailouts. Martin: Twelve to one AGAINST bank bailouts!? John: This also represents a challenge to the American people to play by the rules. They will help people if they are victims. But, if there is a question about greed or someone making a bad choice, American largesse goes away. Martin: How did the bank bailout question break out between the parties? John: Even among Democrats only 9.4% favor the bank bailouts, while 65.3% would let banks fail. And among Republicans, the opposition is greater, naturally — 3.9% of Republicans favor bank bailouts; while 93.8% are in favor of letting banks fail. This is a stark reflection of the voter anger against bailouts. Martin: We saw that same anger when we ran our own internal poll two weeks ago. Nearly 89% of our readers said they would vote for an independent who rejects both parties and favors ending the government stimulus or cutting the size of government. But our poll, of course, was strictly with our readers, who lean heavily toward independents. John: The sampling methods of our Weiss-Zogby poll were more scientific, based on a representative sample of voters from all parties — including Democrats, Republicans, independents such as Tea Party supporters and others. Yet, although our sampling methods were very different, the poll results trend in a similar direction. Martin: You also asked voters to select from the same three hypothetical candidates we presented in our internal poll — an incumbent Democrat, an incumbent Republican and a maverick outsider who opposed both parties. Please give us those results. John: The maverick outsider got the vote of 48.7%. The incumbent Democrat got 39.3%. And the incumbent Republican got only 5.7%. So the maverick who wants to reduce the size of government had a 10-point advantage over the Democratic candidate. Bear in mind, though, that in the actual elections most of the maverick outsiders are Tea Party candidates running under the Republican ticket. Martin: But this "THROW-THE-BUMS-OUT" sentiment is not strictly the domain of Tea Party supporters, is it? For example, I have some interesting quotations here submitted by folks who are not Tea Party supporters. One person quotes Will Rogers who said "Congress is the finest body of men money can buy." Another quotes Benjamin Franklin who said "No man's life, liberty or fortune is safe while our legislature is in session." John: There's a great Mexican peasant revolutionary slogan from over a century ago: "Down with whoever is up." Our poll tells us that the anger is nonpartisan. There are angry people from all parties. Martin: So bottom line, what do you see for Congress after the elections? John: I see three possible scenarios: In the first scenario, fiscal conservatives sweep into Washington. A growing number of Republicans, Independents and even Democrats — whether incumbents or newcomers — come to town with a mandate to block any new spending programs or even cut the size of government. In the second scenario, neither party gains operational control of either the House or the Senate. And in the third scenario, Democrats retain a majority, but only by a very slim margin. So even in this third scenario, they are unable to ignore the public rebellion against bailouts, and it becomes next to impossible to pass more bailout laws. Martin: It seems to me that the actual head count in Congress is a pure numbers game — a crap shoot — and all the talking heads on TV are trying to guess what it's going to be. But this is not just about head counts, is it? My point is that you don't have to be a Tea Party supporter or even a Republican to be a fiscal conservative. And you don't even have to be a fiscal conservative to say what a lot of people are saying: "WHOA! SLOW DOWN! STOP SPENDING SO MUCH MONEY SO FAST!" John: They are saying, "We are spending trillions and trillions. But where's the ROI on this huge investment?" Plus, fiscal conservatives are getting more support from a core middle class group that is very activated. Martin: Thank you, John. We're going to move on now to discuss investment strategies and before the hour is up, we're going to provide specific investment recommendations. But stay with us. If you have more poll results you think are relevant, please jump in. Folks, you are now the very first to have the results of the Weiss-Zogby poll. So if you haven't done so already, start sending me your comments or questions right now, and I will get them here on my laptop. Monty, you've heard John's presentation. We have voters opposed to mortgage bailouts by a factor of two to one. We have voters lined up against big bank bailouts by a factor of twelve to one. We have maverick outsiders smashing both Democrats and Republicans in the polls. What's your take-away? Monty Agarwal: This is a shocker, much more extreme than I expected. My take-away is that this boils down to just one single scenario which is the most probable: A tug of war. Martin: Everyone else calls it GRIDLOCK. You call it a tug of war. What's the difference? Monty: It's similar to gridlock, but more dynamic and volatile! You've got the fiscal conservatives on the one side. And you've got Obama & Co. on the other side. The fiscal conservatives are going to push hard for austerity. Obama is going to push equally hard for more stimulus to get the economy going. Martin: Which side is going to win? Monty: Neither! For a while after the elections, it may look like austerity is the big winner. But as soon as investors realize that means a collapse in the economy, they're going to sell like crazy and run for the hills. And as soon as markets fall apart, the politicians are going to get cold feet and they're going to back off. That's the tug of war. I don't care how fiscally conservative they are. Politicians are politicians. When they see things falling apart, they're going to scramble to do something about it. Martin: I agree. We have a viewer who just sent in this question: "Is the recent rise in gold prices an indication of a lack of confidence in the government?" Monty: Absolutely. And other economies of the world are doing the same thing. Look at what the Bank of Japan just did. Long-Term Megatrends Martin: Richard, thank you for joining us from your home. Your specialty is long-term cycles. But most people grossly underestimate the tremendous impact these cycles have on every aspect of our life, including politics. So before you tell us how this political tug of war fits in, tell us what your foundation does. Richard: The Foundation for the Study of Cycles is a nonprofit research think tank founded 70 years ago in the wake of the Great Depression. We were sponsored by the head of the Smithsonian Institute, by the Chairman of the Carnegie Institution, by the founder of the National Bureau of Economic Research and by the founder of Fidelity Investments. Former President Hoover and former Vice President Charles Gates Dawes also supported the Foundation. Our research is based on the simple fundamental principle that all of nature — and most of history — is driven by regular cyclical patterns. Martin: But identifying those cycles is not so simple. Richard: No. We have pored through political and economic data going back 5,000 years, and we have put together data series on most major markets going back at least 300 years. Martin: And to prove the accuracy of these cycles, you don't have to recreate hypothetical scenarios or engage in 20-20 hindsight. You just go back to the archives of your printed publications. Richard: They were all published in real time. They prove that the Foundation's cycles have accurately identified nearly every major shift in market direction in all five asset classes — (1) stocks, (2) bonds, (3) gold and other precious metals, (4) other commodities and (5) currencies. (We exclude real estate because there are no viable trading vehicles that track real estate values.) Martin: One of our readers has asked: "How do you see the elections impacting the long-term cycles?" Richard: I prefer to answer that question in reverse: How do the long-term cycles impact the elections? We have a massive 60-year cycle in the economy that hit its peak in early 2000 and that should hit bottom in 2011-2012. And when that huge cycle is bottoming, you rarely see presidents make it to a second term. This is a powerful force that will probably make Obama a one-term president. John: But there are so many factors with two years to go. Who will run against him? Martin: Ah, that's the key. But, Richard, you're saying the economic cycle has this kind of impact on all incumbents, regardless of party affiliation. Richard: Right! Whether they're Republican or Democrat makes no difference. Once you get downside momentum in the economy, no government policy can stop it. So incumbents always get blamed for the mess. Martin: That's why, at this stage of the cycle, you invariably get more public anger and more frequent political reversals. Can you give us an example of that? Who Will Fill the Political Vacuum? Richard: For example, if Congress and the administration are locked in a tug of war or if you see gridlock in Congress, you have to ask: Who or what is going to step in to fill that power vacuum? What is the only institution that still has the power to act? Martin: Ben Bernanke! The Federal Reserve! Richard: Exactly. As soon as it looks like markets are falling apart again, Bernanke will jump in with a second major round of money printing. Martin: John, what do you think of Bernanke's role? John: There's an enormous amount of insecurity out there. Voters want problem solving and if they're not going to get it in their government or political institutions, they're going to defer to someone who can offer a steady hand. They think the Fed can do that. Martin: Now, the fog is lifting and we can start to see a pretty clear scenario ahead. First, fiscal conservatism sweeps into Washington in November. Second, we get a big decline — or at a least a correction — in many markets. Third, we get a new round of money pumping by the Fed. Monty: Nearly every one of the Fed decision makers has already said flat out that they're ready to print more money. The problem is they can print all they want whenever they want ... but they have no control over where that money goes! So instead of going into the U.S. economy, investors pour money into other things. Martin: Let's talk about where the money is going to go. We have five asset classes we invest in — stocks, bonds, gold, commodities and currencies. If things pan out as we've just outlined, which of these asset classes offers investors the highest level of certainty in the wake of the elections. Richard: Gold! Over the medium and long term, gold will be driven massively higher by the Fed money printing we just talked about. That's the good news for gold investors. The better news for investors, especially if you don't hold enough gold right now, is that the immediate, short-term effect of the election could be a correction in gold. Martin: I have questions here from readers who are wondering about that — readers like Jim O. and Rita. Rita's question is: "If Republicans take over the house, how will that affect the price of gold and silver?" Richard: At first, global investors may think a more fiscally conservative Congress will actually get spending under control. So gold could suffer a correction. Maybe a correction of $100 or even $200 per ounce. John: Our survey supports the connection between Republican gains and declining gold prices ... or rather, the converse — Democrats in office and rising gold prices. We asked voters if they would be more likely to invest in gold depending on which party comes to power. The results are very interesting. They show that Republican voters would be TEN times more likely to buy gold if Democrats stay in power. And even Democrats seem to admit that their own party in power would be good for gold. They would be TWO times more likely to buy gold with Democrats in power. Martin: So if there's a major Republican victory, you'd see a correction in gold ... and then you'd get another rally if the Fed steps in. Richard, what do you think? Richard: No matter what, any correction in gold will be a great BUYING opportunity. Based on the long-term cyclical research by our Foundation, over the next couple of years, gold could rise above $2,000 per ounce. Martin: Helena and many other readers also want to know your forecasts for silver. Richard: In terms of timing, which is our focus, silver and gold move in almost perfect synch. In terms of the magnitude, silver is more volatile than gold — both on the upside and the downside. Monty: Silver has always been considered a higher beta version of gold, which means it mimics what gold does on the upside and the downside, but with larger percentage gains and losses. The good news is, there are ETFs for both gold and silver, plus platinum — another way to diversify. Martin: What is your opinion on the Foundation's $2,000 gold forecast? Monty: No one knows for sure what the future will bring. But I would take the Foundation's gold forecasts very seriously. Their cycle work predicted the great bull market in gold of the 1970s. It predicted gold's downturn starting in the 1980s. And it would have got you back into gold in the late 1990s, urging you to hold on ever since. Martin: Richard, you gave us the $2,000 level as your target for gold. But you didn't explain why. What are the big drivers behind surging gold? Richard: Fear, crisis, and Fed money printing. Gridlock will leave a power vacuum in Washington ... and that vacuum will empower the Fed to print even more money ... and drive more global investors into gold. Major Dollar Decline Has Barely Begun Martin: Historically, the timing of the gold cycle parallels the timing of the dollar cycle. Richard: Yes, and for the dollar — or for proxies of the dollar — we have cyclical data going all the way back to 1680. Monty: I have scrutinized the Foundation's dollar research just as closely as their gold research. They anticipated the dollar's plunge from 1971 to 1980 ... the dollar's surge peaking in 1985 ... the dollar's decline bottoming in 1992, the dollar's rally through 2001, and then the big plunge since. Richard: And the last time I was here back in February, I said we would see a major, new dollar decline, beginning in the third quarter of 2010 and ending in early 2012. Martin: Monty, bring us up to date on that forecast. Monty: The Dollar Index rose like they said it would and reached 88.5 in the beginning of June. Then it started to fall one month before the third quarter, ending September at 78.1. That's a 12% decline, which is huge in the currency markets. Martin: So the Foundation was right, but their timing was off by one month. Richard: Yes, that's normal. But the next phase of the dollar decline is just beginning. With the election, you could get a temporary rally in the dollar — again because of victories by fiscal conservatives. But then we're going to see a massive new decline in the dollar driving it to new all-time lows. Martin: Apropos to the falling dollar, Phil and John are worried about a total collapse. John writes: "What do you do if the dollar goes to zero and I need a wheelbarrow full of cash to buy a loaf of bread like happened in Germany?" So the question boils down to, how low could the dollar go? Richard: To brand new, all-time lows. Martin: Not down to zero! Richard: No. We're not going to see people carting money around in wheelbarrows. But the decline in the dollar is going to come as quite a shock to most people! Martin: I'm watching questions pour in, and I see two kinds of comments coming from viewers. Some want more track record information — on the Foundation's calls in the stock market and on how much money they could have made following the Foundation's cycles. Meanwhile, some are saying, in effect — "Hey, skip all the track record stuff and just give us some investment recommendations we can make money with right now." Monty: I think investors should look at both — first track record data to give them a level of confidence in the recommendations and then the specific recommendations themselves. Martin: OK. First give us the data. Then your strategies and recommendations. Monty: Remember, I managed hedge funds for 12 years; and in that role, I had to buy a lot of research. So of all the Doubting Thomases in the world, I am probably one of the most skeptical. I always conduct my own personal due diligence before I buy any research, and I have found that the Foundation's accuracy rate is far superior to any other long-term approach I've ever seen. Its work is not perfect, of course. There are a few misses. But the Foundation's cycles anticipated, well ahead of time, almost every major turn in all five asset classes since 1971. You already saw the Foundation's track record in gold and the dollar. Now consider their calls in the stock market. The Foundation's cycle research predicted the giant bull market in stocks that began in 1980. The Foundation predicted the timing of the crash of '87. They predicted the timing of the bear market of 2000-2002. They predicted the market's rise through 2007. And they nailed the top of the market prior to the big plunge in 2008 ... Martin: And this is the Barron's article where you called the big plunge in 2008. Richard: Correct. Monty: Not many people caught that decline — let alone to the month. Plus, in March of 2009, the Foundation's cycle work anticipated a significant rally, which has also panned out as expected. Martin: What are you predicting now, Richard? Richard: A zigzag decline in the stock market lasting more than two years. So let me say this: You'd better be looking at how to profit from the decline. Or, at a minimum, you'd better look for a way to diversify beyond the stock market. Martin: Monty, but how does the Foundation's research translate into dollars and cents for investors? Monty: We looked back to 1971, when the Foundation first began publishing cyclical forecasts on all five asset classes. We found that, if you had invested in all five asset classes with a simple buy-and-hold strategy, you would have done OK. But if you had invested in the five asset classes with the foundation's cycle research, you would have done far better, multiplying your money by nearly 26 times — enough to turn $100,000 into more than $2.5 million. Martin: But that includes the boom years. What about bear market years, starting in the 2000s? Monty: OK. Let's look back at the 2000s. If you had invested $100,000 in the average S&P 500 stock in early 2000 and simply held on, you would have seen a loss of $14,000 by yearend 2009. Martin: That's the black line in the chart. Monty: Right. But just by blindly diversifying the investment — allocating $20,000 to each of the five major asset classes, you could have done much better. Instead of a 14% loss, you'd have a 61% gain. That's the red line. And look at this green line. That shows how much you could have made by diversifying intelligently, using the Foundation's cyclical research as a guide. Then you could have more than doubled your money with a 111% gain. Instead of a $14,000 loss, you'd have a $111,000 gain. Martin: So give us the entire track record in a nutshell. Monty: Sure. Overall, since 1971, this approach could have multiplied your money by almost 26 times— enough to turn $100,000 into more than $2.5 million. That's FOUR times better than the S&P 500. Moreover, since 1992, we're talking about 18 consecutive winning years, in a wide range of conditions — in inflation and deflation, in bear markets and bull markets, during economic booms and busts. All with no debt! No options. No leverage. Martin: That's the past. The future is going to be different, of course. So before we go to your specific recommendations, please give me an answer to this broader question that I've received from several investors: "How can I know which of these asset classes are likely to be the most profitable and how much to invest in each?" Monty: As I've just shown in the last couple of charts, the first key to success in this market — the way to really capture the power of the political changes and the power of the long-term cycles — is true diversification. By that, I mean diversifying across all five asset classes! As you saw, that alone made a huge difference in performance in the 2000s and it should continue to do so in this decade as well. Martin: Years ago, it would have been virtually impossible for the average investor to buy commodities or currencies. You'd need a lot of money to do that or you'd need to take a lot of risk — with futures, in the currency markets ... Monty: True, but today, all five asset classes are readily available to average investors through hundreds of exchange-traded funds — ETFs. This step alone — diversification — puts you heads and shoulders above investors stuck in stocks or bonds alone. Step number two, in today's era — especially in the wake of the November elections — if you want to make money, you must not rely exclusively on up markets. You must also take advantage of down markets. And in each of the five asset classes, ETFs are readily available whether you want to profit from rising prices or you want to profit from falling prices. You never sell stocks, bonds or commodities short. Your goal is strictly to buy them low and sell them high, like any ordinary stock. You buy regular ETFs for rising markets and you buy inverse ETFs for falling markets. Step number three is to diversify dynamically! Don't just keep a fixed amount of money in every asset class all the time. Sometimes, you'll want a lot more, sometimes a lot less. Martin: For example? Monty: If the Foundation's signals say gold is going to greatly outperform stocks and bonds, you may need to double the percentage of the portfolio in gold. Or, let's say we see a major decline coming in long-term bonds. You'll probably want to clear out of long-term bonds entirely! Step #4 is to periodically rebalance the portfolio. Martin: Give us a hypothetical case. Monty: Let's say you invest one-fifth of your money in gold. Then, let's say gold itself doubles in value. You could find yourself with two-fifths of your portfolio value in gold. Martin: That's a good problem to have. Monty: Yes, but you still have to do something about it! That's where periodic rebalancing comes into play. You sell on strength and you buy on weakness, but you do so intelligently. Not based on gut! Not on a whim! Step #5 is risk protection. The portfolio rebalancing I told you about helps preserve profits. But that's not enough. You also need to control losses. If you're wrong about a particular market, you have to set a clear limit on how far you're willing to be wrong. If it surpasses that limit, you need to get out right away. Plus, let me say one more very important thing: I respond promptly to major market turn signals. And I don't shift just small amounts of funds. Gradual, incremental shifting is the right thing to do in a conservative, slow-moving model portfolio. But that's not what I do for most of my money. When I get a major signal, I move, and I do so quickly. Martin: What opportunities are you looking at right now? Monty: Right now, I see three opportunities. The first is gold. We're already in gold and we're doing great. But if you're not in the gold market now, I'd wait for the correction. Then buy a gold ETF like GLD. Second, I'm watching the currency markets very carefully, and the great thing about the currency market is that there's at least one bull market in currencies all the time. Martin: Which currencies? Which ones are going to be the biggest beneficiaries of the political changes we see ahead and of the falling dollar? Monty: They will be countries that are big commodity exporters, such as Australia and Brazil. I want to wait for a correction and then buy the Australian dollar ETF, symbol FXA. This gives you a pure play on the Australian currency itself — no stocks, no bonds. Martin: That answers the question we got from Kay about Australia. But we also have a question from Clive who writes. "How will the U.S. election result affect us in Canada?" Monty: It's also a commodity exporting country. So long term, I am bullish on the Canadian dollar. The third major opportunity I see is in the agricultural commodities. Again, you don't have to buy the commodities themselves. You can simply buy the PowerShares DB Agriculture ETF, symbol DBA. They diversify across the agricultural commodities. Martin: I have a question here from Mr. Aiyadurai, who asks: "Will crude oil start trending down to below $40 in 2011 and 2012 as a result of the huge shifts to manufacture hybrid and electric vehicles?" Monty: I think oil is stuck in a trading range between $65 and $87 per barrel. The weaker developed economies are putting downward pressure on oil, but the weakening dollar is exerting upward pressure. That's why I prefer the agricultural commodities. Martin: I see all of this now coming to a head. I see how the elections are going to set off a chain reaction of economic events that could make your head spin. I see the tremendous value in the long-term data that the Foundation brings to the table. And Monty, I love your record — not a single losing year in your 12 years of managing money — is almost unheard-of on Wall Street in recent years. So let's talk about what we've done for investors. First, Weiss Research entered into a joint venture with the Foundation for the Study of Cycles for full access to its vast databases and use of its signals. Second, we have hired Monty Agarwal to receive the long-term signals from the Foundation, add his short-term analysis and translate them into specific investment recommendations. Third, to underscore my confidence in this approach, I have put my own money where my mouth is. I have deposited one million dollars into a brokerage account. Monty will diversify my money across the five asset classes. He will adjust the allocations. He will maintain balance. He will control risk. And he will choose the specific investments. And fourth, we've created the Million-Dollar Rapid Growth Portfolio to give our readers the opportunity not only to invest as we do; but to actually beat us to the punch! You don't have to invest a million dollars. You could invest any amount you're comfortable with, that works efficiently for you. And I want to make absolutely sure that if anyone has an advantage, it's going to be you — not us. So one full business day before we buy or sell, Monty will send you an email telling you precisely what we intend to buy or sell — and how. Please understand — this is not a money management program. You manage your own account. But you get full and free access to my portfolio online so you can see what we've bought, what we own and what we've sold — and the results of every trade: Every profit, every loss, every dividend earned and every commission charged will be an open book to you. Monty: I will buy no penny stocks, illiquid investments or exotic instruments — just widely-traded investments that anyone can put into any account, including IRAs and other retirement accounts. Therefore, I do not anticipate any issues as to who can get their order in first. Martin: Still, we give investors a 24-hour advantage. What is your immediate plan? Monty: Everything we've seen today leads to the conclusion that the elections will be a pivotal tipping point for the financial markets, thrusting them back into their big, sweeping cycles. So I'm not waiting for the elections to stake out our positions. I want to have the main ones in place before the elections. Markets anticipate the events. And we've got a series of revolutionary events coming in the government's role, unleashing a second series of revolutionary changes in the markets. We've got the research from the Foundation with a proven track record of accurately timing those kinds of changes for the past half century. And we've got ETFs for every single one of the five asset classes to give us tremendous diversity and leeway. We're very well positioned to take advantage of what's going to happen after and before the elections. There's no reason to wait. Martin: That's a good sum-up Monty, and I agree wholeheartedly. Thank you! Editor's note: If you would like to join our Million-Dollar Rapid Growth Portfolio, click here.
About Money and Markets For more information and archived issues, visit http://www.moneyandmarkets.com Money and Markets (MaM) is published by Weiss Research, Inc. and written by Martin D. Weiss along with Nilus Mattive, Claus Vogt, Ron Rowland, Michael Larson and Bryan Rich. To avoid conflicts of interest, Weiss Research and its staff do not hold positions in companies recommended in MaM, nor do we accept any compensation for such recommendations. The comments, graphs, forecasts, and indices published in MaM are based upon data whose accuracy is deemed reliable but not guaranteed. Performance returns cited are derived from our best estimates but must be considered hypothetical in as much as we do not track the actual prices investors pay or receive. Regular contributors and staff include Andrea Baumwald, John Burke, Marci Campbell, Selene Ceballo, Amber Dakar, Maryellen Murphy, Jennifer Newman-Amos, Adam Shafer, Julie Trudeau, Jill Umiker, Leslie Underwood and Michelle Zausnig. Attention editors and publishers! Money and Markets issues can be republished. Republished issues MUST include attribution of the author(s) and the following short paragraph: This investment news is brought to you by Money and Markets. Money and Markets is a free daily investment newsletter from Martin D. Weiss and Weiss Research analysts offering the latest investing news and financial insights for the stock market, including tips and advice on investing in gold, energy and oil. Dr. Weiss is a leader in the fields of investing, interest rates, financial safety and economic forecasting. To view archives or subscribe, visit http://www.moneyandmarkets.com. From time to time, Money and Markets may have information from select third-party advertisers known as "external sponsorships." We cannot guarantee the accuracy of these ads. In addition, these ads do not necessarily express the viewpoints of Money and Markets or its editors. For more information, see our terms and conditions. View our Privacy Policy. Would you like to unsubscribe from our mailing list? To make sure you don't miss our urgent updates, add Weiss Research to your address book. Just follow these simple steps. | © 2010 by Weiss Research, Inc. All rights reserved. | 15430 Endeavour Drive, Jupiter, FL 33478 |
| 
