Skip to Content


Sector Spotlight: Information Technology (IT)

September 19, 2016, 2:05 pm

Information Technology (IT) companies have been among the best performers this year, with the Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLK) up around 10% so far. What’s interesting here is that the strength isn’t just from the high flyers. Out of last year’s FANG (Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Alphabet/Google) group, only Facebook (FB) has solidly beaten XLK, climbing about 20%.

Instead, that outperformance is coming from the “old tech” companies as they begin to reinvent themselves aided by favorable valuations, investors searching for yield and a recovery in the PC market after its slump in 2015. International Business Machines (IBM, +12%), HP (HPQ, +22%), Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE, +49%), Cisco Systems (CSCO, +14%) and Verizon (VZ, +11%) are among the large, old-tech companies that have come roaring back to life this year.

Given this rotation, overall IT spending is not advancing at a rapid rate. Consulting firm Gartner believes total global IT spending will be flat in 2016 in dollar terms, and up just 1.5% when adjusted for currency changes. In addition, IT spending growth is expected to average 2.7% between 2017 and 2020. I think this reflects the fact that most spending still gravitates to many of these old tech firms.

Now that’s not to say there aren’t any opportunities in the tech space. You just have to find the right pocket, and I see cloud computing as one of them. According to Statista, spending on public cloud infrastructure, which was $25 billion last year, is expected to surge to $126 billion by 2020. Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) and Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) spending within this segment will increase from $8 billion to a whopping $32 billion, driven by the lower cost than the traditional client/server IT model.

Some of the old tech companies will be a part of this boom, with Morgan Stanley (MS) estimating that 30% of Microsoft’s (MSFT) revenues will come from the cloud by 2018, a big departure from the days when all Windows and Office programs were contained on a hard disk in a PC.

Big Data also has solid growth ahead of it. International Data Corp. found that spending on Big Data and business analytics software will increase 50% from the end of last year to 2019 as companies continue to mine data in an effort to have valuable information for marketing purposes. The major components of the spending on Big Data are expected to come from services and software.

The trend is clear—more and more companies are going to rely on cloud computing and Big Data to manage their massive networks in the coming years. Given the long-term potential of the sector, I think now is the perfect time to consider getting your foot in the door.

Ford Looks Toward the Future

September 14, 2016, 2:33 pm

For a lot of Fortune 500 companies, the biggest challenge is identifying growth opportunities that will make a meaningful difference without being too ambitious for realistic implementation. Ford (F) and its rivals in the auto industry have struggled with that challenge, as well as the disruptive threats of ride sharing, autonomous vehicles and electric propulsion. Our means of getting from Point A to Point B are on the cusp of changing drastically—so now is the time to ask who the winners and losers will be as the auto industry shifts into the next gear.

Some car makers like Tesla (TSLA) and General Motors (GM) are leaping headfirst with massive investments in the next transportation revolutions, so these stocks revolve around all-or-nothing bets in the long-term. Likewise, Alphabet (GOOGL), Apple (AAPL) and Uber have all thrown their hats in the ring and may or may not become the next generation of vehicle manufacturers.

Ford, however, is taking a more incremental approach to making money on the way to the next big thing. As you can see from the company’s recent acquisition of shuttle-van startup Chariot, management’s ambitions are more about taking over fixed bus routes than investing in Uber’s competitors.

We know that Ford will have autonomous vehicles on the road by the 2021 model year. Watching the company’s lead into this week’s Auto Summit makes me think they’ll street test those driverless cars on fixed routes in specialized traffic lanes where obstacles are relatively infrequent. This is where bus lanes come in—a natural low-risk learning environment for autonomous vehicles—and it’s why the Chariot acquisition is so interesting.

Chariot drivers currently don’t stop until a passenger signals for a pick up or drop-off. They just keep the bus on course and watch the road for trouble. It’s the kind of job an autopilot system could start learning as soon as the regulatory paperwork is ready, and from there the human driver can begin phasing out. Realistic disruption starts here.

There are 665,000 bus drivers in this country, nearly three times as many as the taxi drivers Uber hopes to either consolidate or replace. It’s a big opportunity and far from an all-or-nothing gambit that assumes a sudden global shift from driver-owned cars to a driverless world. That’s what I like about Ford’s strategy. It’s measurable and proceeds in stages instead of banking on revolutionary change. And it happens without investing a vast amount of capital in untested business models (GM paying $500 million for Lyft was a big gamble on cutting-edge “ride sharing” systems).

We could even see fireworks among companies like Avis (CAR) or Hertz (HTZ), where there are too many redundant legacy brands and not a whole lot of competitive fire. Right now, Ford is a leader in this field through its deep relationships with rental and livery fleet operators. If the bus experiment works out well, it’s not hard to imagine the company buying out a rental chain. It’s another point of easy access that could result in massive disruption and a big win for Ford.

For now, Ford is taking baby steps. Investors shouldn’t make any large assumptions, but I already like Ford’s measured approach to tackling the tech of tomorrow. It’s one of the safest ways to keep itself relevant in the high-risk industry it operates in.

Why Friday Was a Fluke

September 12, 2016, 3:32 pm

If there’s one thing I get asked a lot these days – by your fellow readers as well as friends, family and even people on the street – it’s, “Are we heading for a market crash?” I get it. That’s all the big media heads seem to be talking about these days. Consider this: we just came off a historically-strong summer, but you wouldn’t know it by flipping on the television.

With all the noise swirling around, it can be easy to give in to the panic that often accompanies any market bump. That’s exactly what we saw happen last Friday: a major overreaction to a statement by Federal Reserve voting member Eric Rosengren. His warnings that an interest rate increase is right around the corner drummed up fresh fear that the central bank will make a move during their September meeting. Well, if that were the case, you would expect to see the financial sector surge in anticipation of healthier margins ahead, while bonds decline more dramatically.

What we actually saw was broad-based selling almost across the spectrum. Utilities and other dividend-paying stocks lost ground, but they only represent a narrow sliver of the market as a whole. The banks joined them, raising questions about the rising-rate scenario. The dollar gained ground, but not as aggressively as we witnessed in the run up to last December’s actual tightening move.

The extent of Friday’s selling looks exaggerated. Selling volume was actually on the light side, which also makes the decline seem overdone. High-yield bonds held up relatively well, arguably even better than Treasury debt. That tells me that the risk picture hasn’t darkened considerably, and that in many cases traders were simply taking profits and holding the cash. Plus, indices turned right back around today and finished in the green.

As for Eric Rosengren, all he really said was what we’ve known all along: yes, there is a “reasonable case” for “gradual” tightening as long as the job market remains strong. He just made it sound a little more urgent. Still, we knew yesterday that the Fed would let the data lead the dance and that hasn’t changed. If the Fed sees compelling evidence over the next few weeks that the economy is on the verge of overheating, it will vote to raise interest rates in order to keep things cool. Still, I think a December increase remains much more likely.

Days like this are typically only short-term blips that should not affect how we analyze stocks (after all a 2.5% drop in the S&P 500 is not a huge loss in the big picture). There are always exceptions to the rule, but in my many years of experience I’ve found that it’s best to ignore the noise that ultimately takes attention away from what’s actually happening in the market.

Why the Apple (AAPL) Event Fell Short

September 9, 2016, 9:13 am

All eyes were on Apple (AAPL) this week during its annual event, but not every pair was pleased with what they saw. It was by most accounts the usual fanfare: the reveal of the next generation of iPhones, a musical performance by Sia, some marketing fluff from CEO Tim Cook … But I can’t say I remember the last time an AAPL event was quite so divisive.

Most of the drama occupying headlines and forums today revolves around AAPL’s decision to remove the auxiliary port from the new iPhone 7, which means you can no longer plug in any old set of headphones to listen to audio. Now, the lightning connector that once solely functioned as a charging port has become multi-purpose. And not everyone is happy about it.

I can certainly understand AAPL’s reasoning–developers weren’t jumping to exploit the port, so the port went away. At the same time, I don’t think the criticisms are unwarranted, as it seems AAPL is just receding further behind the walls of its proprietary garden. What people are mourning is the idea of third-party development. Now that AAPL developers have decided the auxiliary port is obsolete, accessories like the Square (SQ) card reader must adapt to continue to ride the company’s coattails or get left behind.

Historically, AAPL countered criticisms that it’s walling off innovation around its devices with world-class innovation within the devices themselves. In other words, the “garden” was truly beautiful enough to justify the walls around it. Every two years they’ve improved the garden enough to encourage people to upgrade, but this year may be different.

The problem AAPL faces now is that so many of the traditional differentiators—screen resolution and responsiveness, camera pixels, battery life—have evolved so far that incremental improvements are no longer noticed by the typical user. All of these are mostly abstract numbers at this point: 331 minutes of battery life instead of 231, 326 pixels of resolution instead of 300, etc. Consumers who buy iPhones mostly for the style and simplicity will just shrug.

That’s a bit of a problem because AAPL’s margins necessitate that “wow” factor. Investors make excuses for the company’s share price because of its powerful brand loyalty—but if there is no wow factor to keep people hooked, AAPL becomes just another consumer electronics company, not a technological miracle of the future or an aspirational brand.

Meanwhile hardly anyone is talking about Apple Watch 2, which again fails to bring the wow. It finally has GPS, but we already all have that on our smartphones. You can swim with it, which is neat but not really a must-have feature for consumers. AAPL used to excel at building upon its previous successes: as the tech behind the iPod improved, it turned into a cellphone. As the iPhone improved, it turned into a tablet. Now that the iPhone is shrinking, functionality migrates toward the Watch. The iPhone is no longer where the sizzle is, but the Apple Watch isn’t all that hot yet either. Thus, AAPL is stuck between two platforms that are so-so at best.

To me, that’s trouble in paradise. When the iPhone first hit, it was truly “one more thing” that the iPod couldn’t do. These days AAPL is looking a little desperate for that one more thing again—something that brings the wow factor. Unfortunately it looks like we may have to wait until next year to see it.

Identifying Strong Trade Set-Ups

September 6, 2016, 3:11 pm

Technical analysis is the number one factor when finding the strongest plays in short-term trades, and there are a couple chart set-ups in particular that I like to look for.

The first is what I call the breakout/pullback. It’s not only one of my favorites but also one of the most reliable trade set-ups. It occurs when a stock breaks above an important resistance line and then pulls back a few days later to retest the breakout level. The old resistance line turns into support, therefore giving investors an entry price close to support and lowering risk. Timing is significant here because the breakout often leads to a new uptrend and more upside.

Think about why a breakout occurs. There is a resistance level where either the bears gain control repeatedly or the bulls simply stop buying at a certain price. A breakout takes place when the buyers are willing to pay more for the stock than they have in the past and this puts them in control of the action. A breakout will also attract new buyers from the sidelines that have been waiting for the resistance to be broken, which is why it is often followed by a big move to the upside.

Another type of trade set-up forms when a stock is sitting on a support level that has proven to be a launch pad in the past for a rally – this is often referred to as a double or triple bottom. The more times a stock tests support and holds, the more important the level becomes and the more likely the stock will rally.

The reason I love this set-up is because it protects you on both sides of the trade. If the stock were to fail to rally and break below the support line, it would be an immediate sell signal and you can move on with only a small loss. But if it works out, you stand to make serious profits in a short period of time.

I hope this gives you some insight into the power of technical analysis. Even the most experienced investment gurus can get caught up in headline frenzy instead of paying attention to the actual trends, which can be a critical error when it comes to protecting your profits. There can be a lot of noise on Wall Street, but charts will always tell you the real story of what is going on.

Don’t Bail on Biotech

September 1, 2016, 2:33 pm

If it felt like déjà vu to you when biotech sold off last week, you weren’t the only one. Mylan (MYL) admitted to hiking the price of its EpiPen injection by almost 500% since 2007, renewing concerns that the growing costs of healthcare would pressure pricing and insurance reimbursements throughout the industry. Hillary Clinton and the White House were quick to voice their displeasure, and the sector felt the heat.

As you may remember from almost exactly one year ago, Martin Shkreli, the former CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, purchased a 62-year-old drug (Daramprim) critical in fighting parasites and promptly raised its price from $13.50 to $750—a 4,000% increase. Biotech came to a grinding halt after Clinton tweeted that she was drafting a plan to stop price gouging from drug companies that would also mandate the levels drug companies must spend on research and development (R&D).

Back then, Clinton wasn’t even the favorite in the polls—so now that her campaign has eked out a considerable lead, Big Pharma needs to grapple with whether she is serious about price controls and who the winners and losers are likely to be.

Since the Shkreli fiasco the group has underperformed, with the Health Care Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLV) increasing only slightly. The more growth-oriented iShares NASDAQ Biotechnology (IBB) has fallen about 10%, coming after an additional 14% and 25% drop from last September.

As for Mylan, CEO Heather Bresch was in pure defense mode during her interview with CNBC, blaming the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and stating that healthcare is in a bubble and a crisis similar to what happened last decade. I think she is exaggerating, but I do feel that the pressure to further reduce healthcare costs will intensify, especially with the expected large premium jumps in the ACA health insurance marketplace aggravating the underlying politics. Remember, biotech development relies on knowing you can spend a few billion dollars taking a drug that will only help a few million people through the clinical process. It only works because the current system will tolerate charging upwards of $100,000 per patient. Challenging that business model without offering a replacement creates a lot of turbulence in an environment where high risk is already inherent, especially considering barely a third of biotech companies are bringing in any revenue at all.

Given all of this uncertainty, it’s best to be cautious with healthcare investments. That doesn’t mean to avoid them completely. You’ll just need to have very high conviction that a company’s fundamentals and catalysts are strong enough to withstand broader market pressure. Biotechs could be set up for consolidation given the rising cost pressures, which would increase the number of potential takeover candidates. And if we enter a period where investors get more concerned about the economy, we could see money flow back into those names as investors get more defensive.

Is Apple’s Big Tax Hit Really a Big Deal?

August 30, 2016, 3:12 pm

Apple (AAPL) made headlines today after the European Commission ruled that Ireland granted it illegal tax breaks in order to lure its business to Dublin. While the stock dipped on the news, I’m not too concerned here and expect it to rebound fairly quickly as the news cycle shifts to the back-to-school iPhone 7 launch and the holidays beyond.

Although Ireland now needs to claw back approximately $14.5 billion in uncollected tax, neither the national authorities nor AAPL are rushing the process. Working through the appeal system will take years, during which time the company will simply keep the cash in escrow drawing interest.

In addition, the ruling reveals the limit of what the European regulators say AAPL owes in tax and penalties for 2003-2013. Even a failed appeal is unlikely to increase that liability; the only direction the number can go from here is down.

And lastly, every dollar of tax AAPL pays on that cash will earn it an IRS credit when and if it finally repatriates it where it can return to U.S. shareholders. Up until today the company had treated its Irish earnings as subject to full U.S. tax because its debt to Dublin never rose above 1% of annual profit. Since foreign corporate taxes are subtracted from the effective U.S. rate a company pays, AAPL was looking at paying to the IRS up to 34.5% to move that money back home.

Assuming that the $14.5 billion brings AAPL’s total Irish tax bill close to compliance with the posted 25% corporate rate, it now needs to pay at most an additional 10% toll on every dollar it sends back. The overall impact on the balance sheet doesn’t really change—as CEO Tim Cook has pointed out—but with up to 70% of the benefit of keeping the money in place evaporating, the operational math changes.

In effect, the European Commission just accelerated the strategic choice of whether to get all or most of that money moving again. The 1% loophole has closed. AAPL and other companies exploited it to the best of their ability, even though it left the bulk of their liquid assets stranded overseas for years in order to defer the inevitable IRS bill. Paradoxically, the IRS will not get a much smaller cut of that money once Dublin takes it regulator-mandated fair share. But that’s not AAPL’s problem.

That money won’t move before the appeals process is over. By that point, of course, we’ll have a new occupant in the White House. Ironically, Donald Trump’s current plan doesn’t give AAPL anything because the company is probably looking at a 10% net IRS bill either way. There’s no additional incentive there and depending on the accounting wizardry Tim Cook can whip up, Trump may actually make repatriating the assets look less attractive. Likewise, under Hillary Clinton’s proposals, the incentives for AAPL don’t really change one way or the other—the only new policy card on the table is that it would be harder for the company to permanently migrate its headquarters offshore some day.

My point here is that despite the ruling this looks like business as usual for AAPL. The biggest near-term impacts revolve around sentiment and flexibility: both are mildly positive. On the one hand, the long overhand of the European Commission moves closer to resolution, so investors no longer need to worry about nebulous risk factors on the wind. And that knowledge brings management incrementally closer to the moment where they can justify liberating their offshore cash to engage in transformative research and development (R&D), mergers and acquisitions (M&A) or simple shareholder rewards programs.

Ultimately, I think this will be a watershed moment for AAPL. The decade when this company could rest on massive cushions of cash instead of relying on its tradition of innovation is winding down fast.

And as AAPL goes, the rest of the U.S. corporate landscape follows. Alphabet (GOOGL) and Facebook (FB) have big offices in Ireland as part of their global tax management activities. Companies like Amazon (AMZN) and McDonald’s (MCD) have similar arrangements with Luxembourg. Clarifying their tax status may create short-term liabilities like what we’re seeing with AAPL today, but it’ll also force them to get that money working.

We’re talking apparently $2 trillion in U.S. capital stranded overseas waiting to get back to work when it becomes clear that the tax situation isn’t going to get any better. When that happens, they’ll take the IRS hit and start investing. For an economy that’s been starving for corporate investment, that’s a good thing.  

Pfizer (PFE): Leading the Biotech Buyouts

August 26, 2016, 2:15 pm

News broke this week that Pfizer (PFE) has acquired Medivation (MDVN) for $14 billion—but before Wall Street was even able to digest the deal, the company announced that it will also purchase a part of AstraZeneca’s  antibiotics business.

PFE has earned itself a reputation as a “serial acquirer.” Some investors complain that the company is overpaying for its mergers and acquisitions (M&A) deals … but is it actually working?

PFE generally pays out about half of its profit immediately as dividends. That’s generally $1-$1.20 a per share each year, with the other half—about $4.5 billion—going toward keeping the pipeline fresh. In order to keep that pipeline humming without digging too much into the company’s funds, the deals have to come throughout the market cycle.

Management always wants to acquire for as cheap as possible, but sometimes market conditions mandate that they’ll have to pay a higher price than they would ideally want. PFE paid about 15X current revenue for MDVN because the company actually has a profitable franchise to work with. And in a world where the average biotech stock is trading at 21X book value (remember, two-thirds of these companies are pre-revenue), better deals aren’t easy to find.

But when the cycle turns again, PFE will have a shot at more attractive moves. The company might decide to sit for a few years while smaller businesses take on the risk of building new MDVN-size franchises. Once those businesses start running out of cash (price controls make that happen faster), the food chain will start consolidating on the speculative side and PFE could continue to bolt on other drug companies onto its chassis.

With Hillary Clinton putting pressure on biotech stocks, we could see the cycle turn around quicker than usual. At this point, Wall Street knows that Clinton can talk the drug sector down with just one terse tweet of controlled outrage. We saw it last year during the Martin Shkreli fiasco and got a reminder on Wednesday when the sector plummeted after Clinton entered the conversation on the EpiPen price hike.

On the bright side, any long-term pressure we see on drug prices due to the election results is a long-term win for Big Pharma because it creates motivated sellers. That opens windows of opportunity for savvy buyers.

As it is, PFE has delivered a 10% return on equity over the last year, which is about average for the industry. It’s been a hard year for consolidators given the slightly inflated prices, but it opens up room for better comparisons when the real feeding frenzy starts. When that happens, PFE looks like it could be an exciting buy. For now, business as usual is good enough.

Protecting Your Portfolio

August 24, 2016, 2:37 pm

With so much uncertainty in the market right now, it can be hard to make sense of it all. Between the Federal Reserve, the ongoing Presidential election campaigns and global macroeconomic concerns, many factors are competing to guide the direction of the market, which makes it tough to know what headline Wall Street is going to run with next. That’s a lot to digest, so I’m getting in touch today to share some smart ways to protect your portfolio through it all.

While I continue to believe the Federal Reserve won’t raise interest rates until at least December (we’ll likely find out more when Chair Janet Yellen speaks at Jackson Hole on Friday), there’s no question that a rate hike is inevitable over time. When it does occur, we could see a brief relief rally followed by a period of consolidation as the market reflects on the Fed’s next move, how many rates hikes there may be and the bond market’s response. If investors decide the Fed’s action is likely finished, the reaction could be very minor.

Given near-term riskiness in the market, I believe a larger-than-normal cash position is important. Typically you want to have enough cash available to meet expenses over the next six months, with another 10% available to take advantage of near-term sell-offs in individual stocks or the entire market. Right now, I think a 30% cash position is good but recommend that you take your own risk tolerance into account when determining what’s best for your portfolio.

And when it comes to the general setup of your portfolio, diversifying in value stocks is certainly a good idea right now. Value should continue to outperform growth, especially if we end up seeing a period of sustained rate increases given that some of the current lofty multiples in growth are dependent on low interest rates. In the end, value should always account for at least a portion of your overall portfolio, especially if you’re a more conservative investor trying to minimize the market’s inevitable ups and downs.

There are a lot of value stocks out there, so when sifting through the pile I recommend looking at one of the most important metrics right now: PE. I like to see stocks trading below a market multiple of forward earnings, which in this case is 16.5, although that could be raised a bit for certain stocks and industry groups. I also like to look at free cash flow, dividend yields, earnings trends and return on capital.

I also recommend stressing more high-quality names, as well as those with strong balance sheets that should be able to ride out the market’s tough patches and come out in good shape. But the most important thing is to always make sure the valuation makes sense. If you are able to do these things successfully with a little patience and caution, you should see favorable results over the next 12 months.

Mars vs. Venus: Does Gender Impact ETF Trading?

August 19, 2016, 2:54 pm

For as long as I have worked on Wall Street, there’s been a debate raging over male and female investment styles and which one comes out on top. Now that Matt McCall and I have teamed up for an exciting new ETF trading service called ETF Trend Trader, we thought it would be fun to look at the differences between men and women when it comes to investing and how it plays a role with ETFs.

Years of studies have shown that gender plays a significant role in market psychology, with men typically chasing momentum while women hang back for more reliable performance. While neither Matt nor I really buy into this biological determinism – after all, Warren Buffett comes to mind as a great “feminine” investor! – both of these mentalities can be extremely useful.

What’s considered the “male” market mindset revolves around the adrenaline rush of speed. Trades come to the table fast and furious. When they pay out, the gratification is immediate and the profit rolls into the next name on the screen. There isn’t a lot of patience for positions that don’t surge right away, so it’s really all about getting into a run early and riding high enough to cover the commissions.

On the flip side, studies show that female investors will sacrifice a little upside for reliability. This style starts with intuitions similar to the ones that drive the male trader, but here there’s no rush to push the buy button. Sometimes weeks or even months can pass before all the hints finally add up to conviction and the order executes. Once it does, profit-taking is usually disciplined, sometimes cutting a winning trade too short but always aiming to protect money when you’ve made it.

This is another area where ETFs really do offer the best of both worlds since they cross the strengths of both of these investment styles while neutralizing many of the weaknesses.

For feminine-minded investors, the challenge is overcoming timidity and getting off the sidelines – too often, too much of the portfolio remains shelved in cash or dead money positions. The ETF format provides a framework for thinking about quicker turnaround and more opportunistic entries and exits. Unlike stolid mutual funds that price after hours, an ETF can move throughout the trading day, enhancing returns and narrowing holding periods for those who stay alert to fleeting opportunities.

Of course, only the most concentrated ETFs will move as fast as thinly-traded stocks, so you’re not diving straight into the deep end of the pool. But even so, the fact that we’re diversifying through different trends opens up opportunities to reach for bigger and bigger returns. Beating the market is a beautiful thing because it builds confidence as well as your bank account.

There are a lot of advantages to quicker trades over buy-and-hold ETFs, so there is still that thrill of capturing the latest trend for those who take a more traditionally male approach. Aggressive investors can intuitively grasp the “exchange-traded” dimension of the ETF structure, but here it’s a matter of moving close to an efficient frontier without sacrificing a lot of speed. ETFs can only move as fast as their most overweighted holdings, so there’s a ceiling on the volatility you’ll have to swallow even on the epic days. When the moves are on your side, you’ll still make money. When they go against you, the slight lag generally shields you from taking big hits.

For Matt and I, the crossover of these two investment styles statistically generates richer performance and ultimately better investment outcomes. You get a bit of a thrill of individual stocks, some of the cushion of mutual funds and all of the upside of picking winners. So whether your market style is from Mars or Venus, our down-to-Earth approach to ETF trading maximizes your profit potential.

Now is a critical time to jump into the ETF market, so if you’re interested in joining us as we rake in market-beating profits, please check out ETF Trend Trader!