Category Archives: GLD

Biogen Idec (BIIB) and Teva Pharmaceutical (TEVA) are doing a dance as both are members of the Nasdaq 100 index. As one stock is at a new high the other is reaching a new low. The two-step that is being done by the stocks is quite amazing. Back in October 30, 2009, we pointed out that the concentration of biotech stocks at a new low meant that they were possible takeover candidates. From that list in 2009, GENZ and CEPH were actually tendered buyout offers. 3 of the remaining 5 biotechs have had gains of 40% or more since then. The remaining two stocks, Amgen and Gilead Sciences, are essentially at break even. BIIB has been the leader in terms of price appreciation with a gain of over 100% since October 30, 2009. At that time TEVA was near a new 52-week high. However, BIIB’s recent success is actually impacting the performance of TEVA since both companies are involved in the development in MS drugs. TEVA is now on our new low list for the Nasdaq 100 and should be consider as a top acquisition candidate for your portfolio. Anyone who bought BIIB based on our watch list from October 2009 should now consider securing a large portion of the gains and possibly funding the purchase of TEVA with the proceeds.

Our September 5, 2009 article titled “Silver Should be the Focus” recommended that anyone interested in investing in gold should instead put there investment funds towards silver. The chart below reflecting the silver (SLV) and the gold (GLD) ETF demonstrates the accuracy of our recommendation and highlights what we believe is likely to come. Those interested in determining an entry point should reference our latest article on April 14, 2011 highlighting the downside targets for precious metal stocks based on the Philadelphia Gold and Silver Stock Index (XAU).

The results are in and our article titled “A Comparison Between Dividend Strategies” has demonstrated, so far, that the New Low approach has returned 19.52% while the list of stocks we compared ourselves to has returned only 1.39%. We believe that, although the two list have similar companies, the quality and timing has made the difference in performance. As a note, we only made the comparison because the author of the other list indicated that it was for the purpose of trading. In our view, stocks that can be considered for trading are worth comparing since we only aim for 1-year performance.