Most people think that China’s current economic status is a mirage created by government stimulus and relies on exports. However, examination of China’s economic growth over time reveals that consumption and gross capital formation are the two pillars lifting China to the top.

Balance is also a crucial goal for China’s economy – the economy must not grow too quickly or risk a sharp correction. Just this year, China has weathered an epic battle with inflation, drought and floods, poor global macroeconomic conditions, massive accounting/corruption scandals and a tragic accident on one of its marquee achievements-the country’s high speed rail system.

China remains the beacon of hope for the global economy, the largest and, many times, the “sole engine of the world economy,” BCA Research says. China’s real gross domestic product (GDP) is forecasted to grow 8.9% in 2011 and 7.8% in 2012, according to ISI Group. This is a slower rate of growth compared to recent years but “doesn’t look like an economy struggling under tighter credit conditions,” research says.

Ending the country’s dependence on exports is the “professed pursuit of quality over quantity,” says GaveKal and became an immediate necessity for China to maintain economic stability after exports collapsed by 40% from September 2008 to January 2009, triggering a sharp slowdown in growth, BCA says. Recent data shows China has kicked the habit as exports have contributed little to the country’s growth in 2011. Net exports accounted for 18% of China’s total 14.2% GDP growth in 2007, according to CLSA’s Andy Rothman. During the first half of 2011, exports have a negative contribution of -0.7% of China’s 9.6% GDP growth and accounted for only 12% of total industrial sales revenues. We’ll debunk more tall tales of China’s export economy in a moment.

Transitioning Workforce and the Importance of Housing in China

While China’s “ghost cities” have stolen headlines, China’s real estate market sits on a much stronger foundation than China bears would have you believe. In reality, the property market is actually in a much healthier position than it was at the start of the year. CLSA says the government’s focus on keeping housing price growth under control and limiting the availability of mortgages has resulted in “none of the 70 cities monitored by NBS price increases of more than 1%” on a month-over-month basis in July.

Despite this relatively tame market, GaveKal cites Nouriel Roubini as saying these “ghost towns” are evidence that China’s excessive investment in capital stock has crossed a critical threshold – a bubble.

There are many questions surrounding the global market but the Chinese economy remains headed toward the moon. The country, of course, remains vulnerable to external forces but we believe the economy’s strong momentum will be enough to carry the country through, should volatile times persist.

Source: MoneyMorning

Fast food can be an occasional unhealthy indulgence – but fast food stocks can be a healthy dose of profit for your portfolio.

Imagine you were one of the first to buy shares of McDonald’s Corp. (NYSE: MCD), the world’s largest publicly traded fast food company.

When the “golden arches” opened its doors in 1960, it offered just six menu items – including a 15-cent burger and five-cent fries – at its 102 locations. Now it operates more than 33,000 restaurants in 118 countries and serves more than 64 million customers a day.

McDonald’s went public in 1965, selling its shares for $22.50; now its stock trades around $90 a share.

That means today, after 12 stocks splits, 100 shares of the original McDonald’s stock that cost you $2,250 would have grown to 74,360 shares worth roughly $6.7 million – and that doesn’t even count dividends paid out by the company.

No other restaurant chain has matched McDonald’s success, but others have shown phenomenal growth with impressive profits – and I’m going to show you how to find them.

Four Must-Have Factors for Fast Food Stocks
To find a winning fast food stock we have to look at what will drive growth – and related profits – in the future. There are four dominant themes you need to look for.

McDonald’s Corp. (NYSE: MCD), recent price $90.79 – This may be an obvious choice, but it’s hard to argue with success. Mickey D’s strong second-quarter earnings pushed the stock up almost $5 a share in July, and it held most of the gain in spite of the debt-ceiling debacle and resulting market plunge. The company’s profit rose 19%, earning $1.41 billion, or $1.35 a share, on revenue of $6.91 billion.

Year-over-year growth in international revenue grew 5.4% despite a shaky global economy. McDonald’s is making a major push in China, with plans to double its number of franchises over the next three years. It’s also among the first to offer drive-thru service, recognizing China’s recent climb to No. 1 in the world auto market, as well as a “McDelivery” service in dense metropolitan markets.

The company is trying to increase U.S. revenue by remodeling restaurants, adding more playgrounds, and redesigning drive-thru operations to increase efficiency. It broadened the menu to include gourmet coffees and milkshakes, and healthier options like putting fruit rather than fries in kids’ Happy Meals. McDonald’s is also targeting a slightly richer demographic these days, looking to capture some mid-range diners who are scaling back to save money.

Current analyst estimates project full-year earnings for McDonald’s to hit $5.21 a share this year and $5.73 in 2012. The $2.44 dividend provides a current yield of 2.7%, and the median one-year price estimate for the stock is $99.00 a share.

Source: Larry D. Spears, Money Morning

Or was it having the reserve currency of the world since 1945?
No, that would not have been enough. Was it taking that reserve currency off the gold standard on August 15th 1971? And then being able to simply double her debt every seven and a half years for the past four decades?

America is the most powerful county this Earth has ever known. Not even the Ming Dynasty came close to the power and influence that modern day America has.
So how did this happen?

Are Americans smarter, taller, faster or better looking than the rest of the world? Maybe Americans just work harder or longer than anyone else on this planet, maybe that’s it. Or maybe Americans are just better at educating their kids…maybe that’s it?

Well, I went looking to figure out if there was one thing, one thing that set America and Americans apart from the rest of the planet.
And guess what? I found it.

I found the one thing that Americans have over every other county. They didn’t always have this “one thing”. But once America acquired it, they exploited it.
And I mean America exploited it, like Sarah Palin exploited her Vice President nomination in 2008.

So what is this “one thing”?

What do you think? Was that what made the difference?

Let me ask another question, do you think the world will allow America to double her debt again (read: will they continue to buy America’s debt)?

What does this mean for the stock market? The bond market? The commodities market? The price of houses sitting in the middle of two of America’s deserts (Las Vegas and Phoenix)?

What does it mean for the conventional big box financial advisors’ clients? And what should I do? If the US cannot or is not allowed to double their debt again, what does it mean for people’s retirement…and for the future of the US?

I want to be clear. There are a few people that are not only avoiding the pain but are getting richer. Their accounts are growing and their retirement has never looked better. Just because the US is detoxing doesn’t mean you have to.

What happens to the American Miracle when America can no longer take on more debt?

Source: RC Peck

You can use dry ice for a lot – keeping a picnic lunch cool, generating fog for backyard karaoke. Now it’s about to revolutionize computing all over again.

More important, it’s going to touch off a scramble for a wonder substance that’s in high demand, and produced mostly in China. If you feel you missed out on the rare earth boom, you’re on the cusp of something equally lucrative.

The story begins with two breakthroughs, both revealed in the last 10 days.

Researchers at IBM announced this month they’ve built the first integrated circuit made of something called graphene.

The wafer you’re looking at is as thin as humanly possible — exactly one atom layer thick. And yet it’s powerful enough to…

Make mobile phones work in places they can’t now
Make almost any electronic device run faster, with less electricity
Power devices that can see inside the human body without harmful X-rays.

You can’t do that with the stuff that’s made up integrated circuits for the last 40 years — silicon. Graphene is on its way to becoming “the new silicon.”

Also this month, researchers at Northern Illinois University made a parallel breakthrough, equally important: They hit on a way to manufacture graphene in high volumes.

Instead of previous methods — splitting graphite crystals with tape, or heating silicon carbide to high temperatures — the NIU scientists came up with something so simple your teenager could do it in the garage (although we wouldn’t advise it) — burning magnesium in dry ice.

“Up until now,” says professor Narayan Hosmane, “graphene has been synthesized by various methods utilizing hazardous chemicals and tedious techniques. This new method is simple, green and cost-effective.”

Graphene is derived from graphite — which itself is derived from the humble carbon atom. The two scientists at the University of Manchester who isolated graphene in 2004 won the Nobel Prize for physics in 2010.

“As a material, it is completely new,” declared the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences upon bestowing the prize. “As a conductor of electricity, it performs as well as copper. As a conductor of heat, it outperforms all other known materials.

“It is almost completely transparent, yet so dense that not even helium, the smallest gas atom, can pass through it.

“It is not only the thinnest material in the world,” adds The New York Times, “but also the strongest: a sheet of it stretched over a coffee cup could support the weight of a truck bearing down on a pencil point.”

So it will have uses other than electronics. Physicist Michio Kaku from City University of New York envisions more lightweight aircraft and stronger plastics, among other innovations.

Here’s the rub: “Good graphite is not that easy to find,” says our natural resource maven Byron King. “Graphite prices have more than doubled in recent years.” No graphite, no graphene.

On top of that, Byron continues, “China controls 80% of the global graphite market — just like China runs 97% of the world supply of rare earths.” And China’s reserves are dwindling.

So not only are we looking at “the new silicon” in terms of potential… we’re also looking at “the next rare earths” in terms of scarcity. And yes, just as with rare earths, the rush is on to find new sources outside China.

Many lie in developing countries run by dictators who’d love nothing more than to nationalize a big graphite find as soon as some company does the hard work of proving it up. But one of the largest is in North America — 8 million tons — controlled by a tiny firm Byron recently uncovered.

It can produce graphite for $400 a ton and sell it for $2,000. That’s $12.8 billion of potential for a company with a market cap of $58 million.

Source: Agora Financial: The Great Rare Earth Supply Crunch

This is the fifth consecutive month that commodities have outperformed the stock market — their longest streak since 1997.

The key reason commodities outperformed stocks and bonds is the weak dollar.

In the midst of the longest commodity boom since 1997 (see below), the hottest commodities right now are, alas, without a corresponding ETF.

Nor can sophisticated investors trade it in the futures market. But there is a way you can still make money in what appears to be an aggressive uptrend:

The blue line represents the price of neodymium — used in everything from portable headphones to hybrid cars. The red is samarium — an essential metal for precision-guided missiles.

Both are rare earth elements — under the tidy production grip of our friends in China. You’ll recall China slashed rare earth export quotas 35% at the start of this year… on top of a 40% cut six months earlier. World prices for many of these minerals have doubled in 2011… on top of a fourfold increase last year.

New developments make it look as if this trend is with us to stay.

As we’ve been detailing, one after another, attempts to break the Chinese stranglehold are smacking head-on into obstacle

• Lynas, an Australian firm, and a former Byron King favorite, attempted to open the world’s largest rare earth refinery in Malaysia but ran headlong into stubborn regulators. An operating permit is being withheld as protesters raise alarms about the rare earth ore’s radioactive contamination — which is naturally occurring, and low level. Approval has been delayed six months
• Toyota’s running into its own regulatory roadblocks trying to partner up with companies to mine and refine rare earths in Vietnam. The deal was announced last fall, but now production won’t get under way till 2013
• In Japan, Dowa Holding’s attempts to recycle rare earths from old electronics is proving more difficult than first thought. Its factory is up and running, recycling 19 metals — but no rare earths.

The Chinese have even upped the ante again too. As of April 1, new taxes on rare earth miners were imposed. What used to cost producer 50 cents per kilogram of refined product now costs $8.

So the scramble to bring rare earths into production outside China moves into higher gear. Industry darling Molycorp — which is gearing up to reopen a rare earth mine in California — recently made investors do a double take when it bought a 90% stake in a rare earths producer in Estonia.

“Does this mean,” wonders our Byron King, “that Molycorp is hedging its bets? Things might not go as well as planned with the California schedule? It’s possible.”

Readers of Byron’s premium advisory Energy & Scarcity Investor have already made hay with Molycorp, collecting 178% in a scant four months. They collected 109% in two months on another of the sector’s “usual suspects”… and they have open gains of 93% and 147% on other rare earth developers.

But for the biggest potential gains, Byron remains focused the big question — who will be the first outside China to go into production?

Source: Addison Wiggin – The 5 Min. Forecast

Earlier this month, the trio demonstrated just how serious they were, with the Peruvian and Colombian stock exchanges entering into a full-blown merger agreement. These are the three best-run countries in Latin America, with a combined gross domestic product (GDP) of more than $500 billion.

If they get their act together, it’ll be these three countries – and not Brazil, that much-ballyhooed “BRIC” country – that are the “must-have” havens for our money.

Colombia, Peru and Chile have benefited enormously from the zooming surge in commodities and energy prices.

Peru is a commodities bonanza, with major potential in everything from gold to fish. Colombia, on the other hand, is already a significant oil exporter. And in recent years the country has caused the curve of its oil production to turn sharply upward – it produced about 760,000 barrels a day in 2010, and production is increasing at about 10% annually. And Chile is a world leader in copper.

Each of the three countries is larger than any country in the European Union (EU), but their total population is relatively modest at 92 million. Total GDP was $528 million in 2009, but growth is rapid: Colombia grew at 4.4% in 2010, Chile at 5.1% and Peru at an extraordinary 8.7%. While all three countries have excellent relations with the United States (Chile has a free-trade agreement and Colombia has negotiated one subject to ratification by the U.S. Congress).

Also worth noting: China is active as an investor in all three countries, especially Peru.

The real secret to the success of these three countries is that they are competently run and have kept their public sectors under control. Chile, for example, has a public sector (as a share of GDP) that’s about half the size of Brazil.

The big question for investors is whether the countries’ free-market orientation will be maintained. The outlook is the most solid in Chile, where the social democrat government that left office in March 2010 was quite market oriented, and the new government of President Sebastian Piñera is even more so.

In Colombia, a free-market government led by Alvaro Uribe has been replaced by another free market government led by Juan Manuel Santos, in office until 2014.

In Peru, the outlook was cloudy at the time of the last election in 2006. But the prosperity that the country has seen since then has improved matters. Three of the four leading candidates for the April 2011 presidential election are free market in outlook; should one of these candidates win, the collaboration with Colombia and Chile can be expected to continue.

The main gain for the three countries from working together is the ability to achieve economic scale.

Combined, Colombia, Chile and Peru have GDP of about 1% of the world’s total, so if they can persuade investors that they really do represent a single bloc, they will attract a renewed flow of both direct investment by big companies and portfolio investments by the largest institutions.

The stock market merger that I outlined above is the first – and easiest – way for them to cooperate. And it should bring in a flood of new money once it’s completed.

Source: Martin Hutchinson

To counter deflation’s bad effects, and to stimulate the economy – the US plans to spend billions of dollars over the next few years.

Since, the US runs a large deficit, it can finance this stimulus in only two ways:
1. Issuing Debt
2. Printing Money

As the global recession tightens its grips on countries across the world, the appetite for US debt is getting smaller. The yields on US government debt are already at all time lows, and then there is the small matter of – the stimulus that other countries need.

Countries like China, India, Japan, Russia etc. also need to stimulate their domestic economies. They plan to do this by using their dollar reserves, and buying more debt at this time is hardly feasible.

The other option for US to finance this debt is by printing money. Many countries ranging from Germany to Argentina to Zimbabwe have already done this throughout the history of the world. While, you may not see a 100 billion dollar US banknote, inflation is the natural consequence of printing money or quantitative easing and is unavoidable in the current circumstances.

Domestic Inflation effectively reduces the ability of American consumers to buy Chinese goods, Russian oil and Indian software, among other things. As prices rise, people can afford lesser goods and services.

More importantly, domestic inflation reduces the ability of the Chinese, Indian and Russian exporters to sell their stuff to US, and keep their own domestic economy going.

Inflate or Die

Faced with the increased supply of dollars in the market, other countries have two options:

1. Let the values of their own currencies rise, relative to the dollar.
2. Print more domestic currency to match the depreciating dollar.

If the central bankers allow their domestic currencies to rise, then many exporters will lose their competitive edge, and ultimately shut shop.

What if they let the dollar fall?

Developed countries like Canada who are also major exporters to the US can in fact, let the dollar fall, and allow their domestic currencies to rise. This will contain inflation, although it will impact exports, and slow the growth of their economy. Since, Canada is already a developed and rich country – it can allow that.

Countries in the developing world can’t allow a hit on their growth – because that will have severe social and political consequences.

So, there you have it, inflation export – from one country to another – due to the tightly integrated financial markets, and the reserve currency of these markets – dollar.

Source: OneMint

This reminds me of the valuations being assigned to Internet companies leading up to the “dot.bomb” crash. There’s no way a company that relies on nothing more than bits of information – the vast majority of which are summarily ignored by the community that supposedly finds it so compelling – should have a valuation approaching The Walt Disney Co. (NYSE: DIS), equal to The Boeing Co. (NYSE: BA), and greater than Time Warner Inc. (NYSE: TWX).

Still, for the sake of argument, let’s play along and suppose that the $500 million capital infusion is for real and that the $50 billion valuation it implies is correct. Then the question becomes: What does the transaction say about Goldman Sachs, which arranged the deal, and the regulators supposedly overseeing it?

Nothing good that’s for sure.

The way I understand the deal is structured, Digital Sky is investing $50 million and Goldman is investing $450 million for a stake in Facebook that they plan to package and resell to investors. That makes Goldman a principal in the deal, which means in very plain terms that they can no longer claim any obligation to the investor (their customer) who bought the other side. It’s important to keep that in mind.

Now let’s move on to the valuation.

I wonder exactly what the Russians are getting for their money, because Facebook is still a private company, which means nothing it does is reportable.

Reports suggest that some 1/12 of the world’s population gathers together on the popular social networking site – which now ranks ahead of Google as the world’s most-trafficked Web site – and that the collection of human data that’s stored there makes Facebook the largest, self-fueled marketing database in human history.

That point is well taken.

But exactly what is Facebook going to do with all of that data? The presumption appears to be that Internet advertising is the “golden egg.” Unfortunately, that theory’s been dead – or at least passé – for years.

Even if there are products for sale, which to date is not the case, the backlash that’s building about sharing sensitive information online could kill the company overnight – $50 billion or not. Then there’s the fact that people are losing interest in the two-way drivel that at the end of the day becomes nothing more than another e-mail platform cloaked under the guise of “social media.”

Sure, Facebook has a lot of people trolling through its site, but the important question is how do they monetize that traffic? In other words, they face the same old dilemma salesmen have faced since the beginning of time: How do you convert the “tire-kickers” into buyers.

Personally, I think the more interesting aspect to this transaction is Goldman’s involvement. By helping raise $500 million, the firm is doing more than simply pocketing huge fees. Goldman is positioning itself for the eventual initial public offering (IPO), which this fund raising postpones – at least for the moment.

It would not surprise me in the least to learn that Goldman Sachs has a contractual right to be the manager of Facebook’s IPO. If that proves to be the case, it would mean Goldman has effectively fronted Facebook $450 million for the privilege of orchestrating the company’s forthcoming IPO – and then gotten its money back by selling its stake in the company off to high-end clients looking to get a piece of the social media giant.

But let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

For the moment, Facebook remains a private company and does not have to discuss anything it does – such as the costs it incurs, the mounting complaints regarding personal data, or where it spends its money. Nor does Goldman have to disclose how it’s profiting from the deal or acknowledge related trading positions it’s establishing in the process.

Speaking of which, the other thing that catches my attention when it comes to this entire matter is that Goldman reportedly wants to create another of its “special investment vehicles” – one that would allow a select few additional investors to put as much as $1.5 billion into Facebook. That would mean more fees for Goldman, while also ensuring that it keeps its “investors” outside of the Security and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) public disclosure rules.

Sound familiar?

It should, given that special investment vehicles and limited disclosure played a key role in creating the financial crisis that’s still not over and from which Main Street is still reeling. Never mind the irony that – thanks to a taxpayer funded bailout – Wall Street bonuses are bigger than ever and that it’s already back to business as usual.

All is not lost, though.

Several sources are now reporting that Facebook may already be over the 499-investor limit threshold that requires public disclosure. If this is true, Goldman and Facebook could both be dragged kicking and screaming into a hostile court of public opinion that will highlight just how stacked the deck is.

And speaking of stacked decks, let’s talk about conflicts of interest for a minute. According to the one page investment profile Goldman sent to its wealthiest clients, “GS Group may at any time further reduce its exposure to its investment in Facebook without notice to the fund or investors in the fund.”

If that’s not a conflict of interest, I don’t know what is.

This clause would allow Goldman to hedge or trade against the very same clients it’s now putting into the deal. That, in turn, means the firm can exit or burn the house down without warning!

Of course, I love the small print, which also states that the content of the offering “is not guaranteed as to accuracy or completeness.” Maybe that’s why there’s another line near the very bottom that advises potential clients: “Do not contact Facebook.”

Could you imagine investing your hard earned money into a prospective stock offering and agreeing not to talk to the issuer to do due diligence? What ever happened to the Prudent Man Test – or at the very least common sense?

Sadly, though, my guess is that Goldman will find a way to steer clear of the entire shooting match at all costs to avoid disclosing its business practices – the same way it paid a $550 million fine last year to settle charges of securities fraud related to mortgage investments.

Incidentally, the SEC was very proud of its pound of flesh and the $550 million penalty –apparently they didn’t realize that Goldman booked more than $13 billion in the process.

Source: Keith Fitz-Gerald

Thus, doing the rare earths gig is far more than basic exploration, mining and crushing. Doing rare earths correctly involves being really good in chemistry and chemical engineering as well. There’s nothing easy about it.

The big rare earths story for 2010 was how an otherwise obscure sector of the mining and processing industry became a destination point for billions of dollars of new investment. As 2010 drew to a close, we were in a market mania, in some respects, with some rare earth stocks “melting up.” The story was driven by China and its precipitous reductions in export quotas – front page news across the globe.

You may have seen the statistic that China controls about 97% of the world’s rare earths supply. Let’s not quibble about the exact number – a few fractions one way or the other. And when China ratcheted down its rare earths quotas during 2010 – part of a long-range strategic industrial policy, I must add – it shook the Western world to its industrial foundations. It’s all been a shock to the global trading system.

This shock has produced some shockingly large gains in the shares of rare earth mining companies. A lot of these stocks have become very volatile and frothy. So caution is warranted. But the rare earth story is very real and very exciting.

Don’t miss this one!

Source: Byron King

The audience snickered when she pointed to the recent lower unemployment figures as proof that reform isn’t the job killer that many have made it out to be. Although DeParle cited various facts and figures, she probably didn’t convert any opponents.

But the fact that the Affordable Care Act didn’t cause complaint from the CEOs of the companies directly impacted by it is crucial. On the contrary, they seemed to embrace it – and that’s why I believe it’s going to stick.

The Republicans can fight all they want to get it repealed, but mark my words, as long as the industry is in favor of it, reform is here to stay.

I’ve argued in the past that healthcare reform is President Obama’s legacy and he won’t back down. And perhaps most importantly, with the endorsement from the healthcare sector and the huge lobbying dollars it dishes out, members of Congress will revert to form: Listen to the money talk.

It appears that healthcare companies got what they wanted from reform, which is why they’re not complaining about it. Executives would rather deal with the devil they know rather than the unknown.

I expect some companies to emerge as big winners in the new climate of healthcare reform. Which ones?

Two Winners From Healthcare Reform… And One Trying to Sneak Around It

WellPoint (NYSE: WLP), the largest health benefits provider in the United States, is well positioned to handle both the new influx of patients and regulations. Due to reform and the expansion of Medicaid, WellPoint expects to gain 10 million new customers by 2015.

But Molina Health (NYSE: MOH) might end up as the biggest winner. The company is focused exclusively on government-sponsored healthcare for low-income families – right in the sweet spot of what reform is trying to accomplish.

In 2010, the company expects its medical loss ratio (the percentage of revenue spent on healthcare for its customers) to come in at 85.4%, above the 85% mandated threshold.

Conversely, Healthspring (NYSE: HS) sits below 85%. And rather than discuss any efforts to comply with the requirement, management instead discussed accounting tricks to get above it. Watch for the company’s future guidance on February 17… I suspect it won’t be pretty.

One other point on healthcare reform here: As part of the deal that the industry struck with the government, drug companies will pay an excise fee. However, not one executive I saw appeared annoyed about it. I wouldn’t even call it begrudging acceptance. Rather, they were pragmatic and suggested that these fees are simply part of the agreement – one that they’re satisfied with.

For example, Amgen (Nasdaq: AMGN) CEO Kevin Sharer said his company will pay a fee of $150 million to $200 million after tax. But the upside is that reform “protects innovation and sets a framework for follow-on biologics that’s fair.” In other words, in order to protect his company’ patents, he was willing to pay the fee.

And that leads me to another key theme – and the second of the big three trends that will dominate in 2011…

How to Profit From the “Patent Cliff”

The “patent cliff” situation has loomed large now for the past few years. And today, it’s finally here.

Simply put, the concept refers to the number of everyday blockbuster drugs whose patents are about to expire. As I mentioned in last week’s column, this includes Pfizer’s (NYSE: PFE) cholesterol drug, Lipitor and Merck’s (NYSE: MRK) Singulair, which tackles asthma.

The subject has been a constant topic of conversation this week – and it’s one that gives investors an excellent chance to capitalize. Understandably, though, large pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, Merck and Bristol-Myers Squibb (NYSE: BMY) didn’t want to focus their presentations on the ominous topic.

But the fact remains that generic companies like TEVA Pharmaceuticals (Nasdaq: TEVA) and Impax Laboratories (Nasdaq: IPXL) are set to take advantage of the enormous opportunities that the patent cliff represents – and spent time at the conference discussing how their robust pipelines will facilitate that.

Source: Marc Lichtenfeld

The world energy landscape has changed with new developments in extracting natural gas from shale beds and tight sands. Innovative extraction technologies have dramatically altered the economics of natural gas extraction in North America. South Africa’s Sasol Corp., for example, is teaming up with Talisman (NYSE:TLM) to turn otherwise stranded gas into liquid fuel in northern British Columbia. It’s a truly revolutionary process – a point that The New York Times made a few days after I mentioned this joint-venture to the subscribers of Outstanding Investments.

Companies like Consol Energy (NYSE:CNX) and MarkWest Energy (NYSE:MWE) are also benefitting from US, Canadian and now global shale gas development. Even our friends the Chinese are coming to the US, to learn how we’re cracking shale for gas, so they can duplicate the effort back in the Motherland.

At the same time, the technology for freeing shale gas is finding its way into the oil patch, with companies like Venoco (NYSE:VQ) working to turn California’s Monterey Shale into a vast new oil resource. There are a lot of hydrocarbon molecules out there. The trick is to harvest them.

Forward-looking investors should not ignore the fact that shale gas development will provide enormous opportunities for the oil service guys, particularly Schlumberger (NYSE:SLB), Halliburton (NYSE:HAL) and Baker Hughes (NYSE:BHI).

There’s much more to come with the shale gas revolution. We’re just in the early innings on this one. There’s plenty of good investing ahead, and a lot of hydrocarbon molecules yet to be sucked out of the crust.

Source: Byron King

In a word, No!

If gold is in a bubble, then it’s one heck of a bubble. Not even the 2008, economy-wrecking market crash could pop it. Gold is not in a bubble; it’s in a big bull market, plain and simple.

As stories about quantitative easing and other forms of overt currency debasement crossed the newswires last year, investors became increasingly concerned about the value of the paper they call “wealth.” Increasingly, these concerned investors have been shifting some of their wealth from paper to gold…and other hard assets.

Plus, it’s easier than ever to “own” gold (so to speak) via the rise of exchange-traded funds (ETFs) like SPDR Gold Trust (NYSE:GLD). With a click of your mouse, you can buy into the new gold rush – although in many respects it’s better to buy real gold and take delivery, a point that I’ve made over and over.

At the same time, the world’s gold buyers are chasing declining mine output. That is, despite the rising price of gold, the world is likely past the point of Peak Gold output. All the output from new mines isn’t replacing the decline in output from older mines.

But demand is the main story in the gold market…demand for real money, not the paper kind. The monetary universe is changing in a fundamental way, with the price of gold serving as the barometer, thermometer and inclinometer. The cozy old economic order – post World War II, with the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency – is passing away, and things won’t ever go back to the long, lost “good old days.”

I’ve had endless discussions with skeptics about “why gold prices are rising.” Of course, the skeptics can deny, up and down, the meaning of rising gold prices. But at the end of the day, investors and savers around the globe are becoming increasingly fearful of holding paper currencies.

I won’t even go into the monetary problems that national governments across the world are facing with fiat currencies. Just accept the fact that mankind’s monetary default position is gold, and that’s been the case for 5,000 years or more. Don’t fight history.

Here at Agora Financial, we’ve been recommending that readers buy gold since the late 1990s, when it was selling for under $300 per ounce. We still like it at $1,375 an ounce.

When it comes to gold, there’s one key idea to take into 2011: Gold is money. And gold makes better money than the government-issued kind. The big risk of owning currency and bonds is that any Tom, Dick & Harry – OK, the politicians and bankers – can create as much of it as they want. This year and next, your biggest risk is in not understanding that concept.

Source: Byron King

The Chilean miners’ experience reminded us once again of the huge gulf between countries that work and countries that don’t. Just as the Chilean earthquake last February caused only 521 casualties compared to the 200,000 in Haiti the previous month, so the Chilean mine disaster brought together expertise from all over the world in a remarkably effective and competently managed rescue effort. It is a distinction that does not simply measure the difference between rich countries and poor countries: the 2008 Sichuan Chinese earthquake killed an estimated 90,000 people, while the Russian coal mine disaster in May killed 90 people both in countries of comparable wealth per capita to Chile.

Earthquakes are terrifying and mining is a dangerous job anywhere, but you’re much more likely to survive an earthquake or a mine disaster in some countries than in others. Indeed Chile’s performance both in the earthquake and this mine disaster was of the highest quality probably only in Germany, Scandinavia and maybe Singapore could one reliably expect public rescue services to work so effectively.

For investors, the Chilean earthquake and mine disaster experiences have an important lesson: Countries with really good management should be promoted sharply up investor league tables, for a number of reasons.

First, they are likely to enjoy better economic results. Their efficiency will use resources and labor better, there will be fewer sink-holes of value destruction in the public sector and the uncompetitive private sector and they will generally be more open to new ideas and new techniques. The mine rescue for example used people and equipment from all over the world a drill rig and drill bits from Schramm of Pennsylvania, a German-designed rescue pod and video equipment from Japan. Chile’s ability to assemble a state-of-the-art operation for a unique situation demonstrated the country’s ability to flourish in a competitive globalized market.

While there are other countries with Chile’s management capability though not many they do not have Chile’s wealth of natural resources and they generally have labor costs a substantial multiple of Chile’s. Chile has shown itself well managed under governments of both its political parties, but its current pro-business regime seems likely to be more active in removing obstacles to growth and encouraging the investment needed for it. Since it has the capabilities and resources of a much richer country, Chile seems likely to become one in pretty short order, and investors in Chile should benefit from the rapid growth that this emergence will bring.

Investors seeking exposure to the overall Chilean economy should first consider the iShares MSCI Chile Investible Market Index Fund (NYSE: ECH), which invests in the overall Chilean market index. At $500 million, this is large enough to be decently liquid and has an expense ratio of only 0.86%, very reasonable for a single country fund. Its main disadvantage, as for the Chilean market in general, is a price/earnings (P/E) ratio of 25 and a yield of only 1.1%, but you should remember that Chilean trailing earnings currently include the recession of 2009 and the difficult post-earthquake period, so even without rapid economic growth an earnings rebound would be likely.

For a higher yield, you should look at Vina Concha y Toro SA (NYSE:VCO) the country’s largest wine producer, which although trading on 21 times earnings has a dividend yield of 3.9%. Chilean wine has a quality advantage over most other producers in that the country’s remoteness allowed it to avoid the 1873 phylloxera blight, so its grapes are generally considered of exceptional quality. VCO is thus a leader in the country’s exceptional agribusiness sector, selling a product that is marketable at a premium above other commoditized wine producers.

It’s difficult to get direct exposure to Chilean mining because the dominant copper producer, Codelco, is state owned, while the smaller Chilean mining companies like the San Esteban company which owned the San Jose mine where the rescue took place have generally suffered from low investment and have sub-standard safety records. However one major participant in Chile’s mining is Freeport McMoran Copper and Gold (NYSE: FCX) which has three copper/gold mines in Chile and is investing $700 million in expansion of its El Abra project. FCX’s stock price has run up in the last few weeks, as with most mining companies, but at a 12.64 times trailing P/E ratio it remains good value.

Chile isn’t just a spice for your investment portfolio; it’s an essential ingredient!

Source: Martin Hutchinson, Money Morning

This isn’t easy to do. But when you look at it over history, a simple pattern does emerge…

Each generation, the pattern switches.

One generation gets obliterated by the stock market, knocking everyone out of stocks. Then the next generation lives through a soaring stock market.

It’s not clockwork… but it seems there’s more at work than just chance. Take a look:

If you had lived through the Great Depression – if you had lived through an entire generation where stocks lost money (17 years from 1930-1947) – would you ever consider buying stocks again?

Probably not. Yet that’s when you should have bought… Stocks rose by more than 500% in the next generation, from 1947 to 1965.

Folks who invested heavily throughout the 1970s learned you could “never” make money in stocks. You needed real assets, like real estate and gold. Boy, were they wrong in the 1980s and 1990s. Gold fell in half from its 1980 peak to 1999.

If the last investment generation ended around 1999, and if the pattern holds, then we could see stocks do poorly for something like 17 years… or until roughly 2016. That’s pretty close to what Shiller is saying.

The popular wisdom in 1999 was that you always want to be invested in stocks. Nobody wanted gold. But since the end of 1999, stocks (as measured by the S&P 500 index) are down, as I’m sure you’re well aware. Meanwhile, commodities (as measured by the CRB Index) are up over 100%.

The last generation of stock investors is still holding some love for stocks. And they’re still a bit afraid to commit to commodities like gold. But they will. History suggests they’ll have given up on stocks and be fully loaded in commodities… by 2016.

Looking at the last time we were in a similar cycle, I have two important points to share with you…

1) The March 2009 bottom may be the ultimate bottom in stocks, not 2016. In the last great bear market (’65-’81), the ultimate bottom was in 1974, not ’81. Investors spent the next few years giving up on stocks and looking to “the action” in commodities.

2) Commodity prices could go “parabolic” in the coming years. They did in the late 1970s, at the very end of their bull market. It’s what happens at the end of great bull markets. It’s just like stocks in the late 1990s – they “went parabolic” at the end of their bull market.

So there is some good news…

Commodities could go parabolic from here. And stocks may have already bottomed. So even though it could be years (until roughly 2016) before another rip-roaring bull market in stocks arrives, we may have seen the lows for this generation.

Or none of this could be true, of course… But it has worked roughly this way for the last 100 years.

Source: Dr. Steve Sjuggerud

The decline in sales growth was due to increased competition from Yahoo and Microsoft. Also, Google’s market cap was near $150 billion (it’s the 14th-largest company in the S&P 500 based on market cap). Because of its sheer size, it’s much more difficult to grow sales at the 50%-plus rate management was used to seeing.

Still, the company has $30 billion in cash – about $100 a share – and no debt. Revenue growth is expected to rebound to 14% annually through 2012. Also, Google remains dominant in Internet search. So despite my pessimism, I did not suggest shorting Google.

Instead, my advice was to buy Apple.

Apple is also a large-cap tech company with a huge cash hoard ($24 billion). The stock is trading at the same multiple as Google… with one major difference: Apple is expected to grow its sales by more than 27% annually through 2012. That’s about twice the rate of Google.

As you can see from the chart, shares of Apple (black line) have outperformed Google (blue line) by about 8% since my recommendation.

I am not saying this just to pat myself on the back. My point is that comparison analysis is an important tool for traders… Before you buy any stock, take a look at the company’s competitors.

Right now, Apple is the king of tech. Its recent iPad project is a huge success. When the tablet first launched in April, analysts projected sales of 2.5 million by the end of 2010. Today, one analyst predicts Apple will sell 28 million iPads by 2011.

Apple is also seeing strong sales for its new iPhone. Almost every customer buying an iPad or iPhone buys “apps,” programs that can be downloaded through Apple’s online store for a fee. This creates a steady revenue stream on top of hardware sales. The diversity among revenue streams means Apple isn’t a one-product company like Google, which is dependent on advertising revenue.

Going forward, Apple remains the better play compared to Google based on valuation and growth potential. In fact, I can’t find one tech company I’d rather own today than Apple.

Source: Frank Curzio

One of the other players coached him: “He’s trying to tell you a story with the way he’s betting. The question is, do you believe what he’s telling you?” My opponent believed me and folded. Good thing for him, too, as I had a full house!

Like a good poker player, the stock market is also telling us a story. The difference, however, is that the market is usually believable!

But here’s what many investors don’t understand: the market tells us the story of what will happen, not what has happened.

For example, my father is constantly asking me why the market was up or down on a certain day. Perhaps your family and friends do, too. But they’re missing the point.

Sure, the market sometimes responds to data or news. But it doesn’t usually react to the news. The news often reacts to the market.

Why? I’ll show you…

What Comes First… Market Behavior or News?

The point about the “market behavior in relation to news” equation resonated with me when I listened to a fascinating speech by Elliott Wave Theory expert, Bob Prechter.

In this instance, though, Prechter didn’t discuss Elliott Wave. Instead, he showed the correlation between all kinds of data and events that took place after important moves in the market.

Take wars, for example. They tend to break out when the market is bad – something that makes sense when you think about it. When the market is down, people feel poorer and are more irritable. It’s easier to get them to support a war. Plus, elected officials want to distract the public from their economic woes.

There is a precedent for this theory…

I attended Prechter’s talk in the spring of 2001, as the market was in the middle of the dotcom collapse. In March 2003, the United States invaded Iraq. At that point, the market was down 45% from the highs of March 2000. I can’t help but wonder if that war would have ever been fought if we were still in a bull market.

Bulls, Bears and Birth Rates

Bear markets also spark decreases in birth rates.

Again, it makes sense that when people are less comfortable financially, they put off new financial burdens like a child. Not to mention, financial stress makes people less amorous.

The opposite is true of bull markets. During and shortly after bull markets, the birth rate usually rises.

I was reminded of Prechter’s talk last week when news came out that the U.S. birth rate was the lowest in history.

In 2007, for example – the top of a four-year bull market – there were 14.3 babies per 1,000 of the population. That year, more babies were born in the United States than in any other year in America’s history.

But in 2009, the figure dropped to 13.5 babies born per 1,000 people. The marriage rate also decreased from 7.3 per 1,000 in 2007 to 6.8 in 2009.

Look Forward, Not Back

The fact that the stock market is a forward-looking mechanism makes me less concerned about every piece of economic news that the pundits use to justify their “next Great Depression” or “Big Bubble” theories.

Take 2008, for example. As the market plunged on the back of the financial crisis and several huge corporate meltdowns, it indicated that a nasty recession was on the way. In addition, it perhaps predicted an election victory for Obama, as he was perceived as anti-business.

But a funny thing happened. In 2009, the market rallied hard. The upward move in stocks suggested that the economy was no longer falling off a cliff. Yes, things were still tough, but the panic that many felt in late 2008 was no longer justified.

So what story is the market trying to tell us today – and how do we interpret the data?

Are You Asking the Right Question?

Currently trading around 1,050, the S&P 500 is down 16.1% from its late April high. So does it signal that a double-dip recession is headed our way?

If the index slips much further, I believe it does. However, if it can hold its current level and work its way higher, better days may be ahead.

The bottom line here is that the market predicts the country’s future economic direction, rather than news moving the market. So the next time stocks head in a certain direction, don’t ask, “What happened to make the market move?” Instead ask, “What is the market telling me is going to happen?”

Hoping your longs go up and your shorts go down.

Source: Marc Lichtenfeld

According to the World Bank, the economy of Latin America grew twice as fast as the United States last year. And it’s on track to do the same this year.

So while the United States and Europe worry over huge deficits and threats to a fragile recovery, some smart Oxford Club members have already been scoring with these winners…

125% on Panama’s Copa Holdings in 40 days…
361% on Argentina’s Mercado Libre in 7 days…
135.7% on Mexico’s Fomento Economico in 60 days…

Foreign investment in Latin America will grow to more than $100 BILLION this year.

According to the Economic Survey of Latin America 2009-2010, the leaders in growth this year are…

Brazil… with a projected gross domestic product (GDP) expansion of 7.6%…
Uruguay and Paraguay with 7%…
Argentina with 6.8%…
Peru with 6.7%…
Chile with 5%…

According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), growth in the region is being supported by a rise in worldwide trade that benefits countries that export commodities.

Mexico is the largest oil producer in Latin America, while Brazil is the world’s biggest coffee, sugar and beef producer and a leading producer of soybeans, corn, cotton and rice.

Strong demand in Asia for commodities like iron ore, tin and gold, combined with policies in several Latin American economies that help control deficits and keep inflation low, are encouraging investment and fueling much of the growth.

Latin America’s growth largely reflects a deepening engagement with Asia, where China and other countries are also growing quickly.

In fact, China surpassed the United States last year as Brazil’s top trading partner. And is the second-largest trading partner in countries like Venezuela and Colombia.

And capital flows to emerging markets could continue to increase as faster growth and low debt make them more attractive to investors than some advanced economies.

Opportunities abound not only in commodity-based plays, but also among companies catering to Latin America’s growing wealthy population and middle class.

According to Forbes, “Latin America’s rich are expected to increase their total wealth to $10.3 TRILLION by 2012, more than double what it was in 2005.”

“The total wealth of the region’s rich will have increased at the double-digit rate of 10.8% a year, compared with a worldwide rate of 7.7%.”

The bottom line is that Latin America’s vast natural resources and growing GDP are driving the next phase of development in the region.

And savvy investors who get in now could watch their investments easily double or triple as the Latin America boom continues…

Recent growth spurts around Latin America have surpassed the expectations of many governments themselves…

Smaller countries are also growing fast…

The key to making a fortune in this age of global markets is to invest in the most rapidly growing companies of today – many of which are international companies – so you can enjoy a life of total financial independence tomorrow.

Source: Oxford Club

Lots and lots of pills: sleeping pills, anti-depressants, anti-oxidant pills. They’re everywhere. It’s big business for Big Pharma and the companies are very good at marketing their products.

Comedian Chris Rock referred to this trend, noting that drug companies keep naming symptoms until they find one that you have:

Are you sad, are you lonely, are you hot, are you cold? You gotta take this pill! And they don’t even tell you what the pill does… they just keep naming symptoms. I saw a commercial the other day that said, “Do you go to bed at night and wake up in the morning?” I got that! I’m sick, I need that pill!”

America’s big pharmaceutical companies push their drugs on the public harder than any street corner dealer – and it’s proven to be a highly effective and lucrative strategy. In 2009, for example:

• Merck (NYSE: MRK) earned $12.9 billion on sales of $27.4 billion.
• Pfizer (NYSE: PFE) earned $8.6 billion on revenue of $50 billion.
• Novartis (NYSE: NVS) earned $10.3 billion on sales of $44.3 billion.

The Clock is Ticking

There’s a huge problem looming for these mammoth pharmaceutical companies.

Starting as soon as next year, many blockbuster drugs will lose their patent exclusivity, which will open the floodgates to generic drug competition.

Pfizer’s massive Lipitor drug is one of them. Bad news, considering it generated $11 billion in sales last year. Another $3 billion worth of drugs will also go generic next year.

And it gets worse in 2012. Over $30 billion worth of brand-name drugs will face cheaper competition. That includes Merck’s Singulair, Pfizer’s Viagra and Forrest Labs’ (NYSE: FRX) Lexapro.

So what are the Big Pharma firms doing about it?

Biotechs on the Buyout Block

The executives at these drug giants aren’t sitting around, sipping Cognac and reminiscing about the glory days. They’re busy building up their drug pipelines by partnering with other companies. In some cases, they’re acquiring them outright.

And not all the objects of their affection are tiny biotechs that require a roll of the dice and a large tolerance for risk.

Already, we’ve seen Roche buy major biotech firm, Genentech. And another big biotech, Genzyme (Nasdaq: GENZ), is reportedly a target of Sanofi-Aventis (NYSE: SNY). GlaxoSmithKline (NYSE: GSK) and Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ) are also being mentioned as possible suitors of Genzyme.

Here are a few others that could be acquired in the next 12 to 18 months.

~ Bristol Myers Squibb (NYSE: BMY): Over the past few years, this large cap drug company has been repositioning itself as a biopharma organization.

While it loses its patent exclusivity on Plavix next year, Bristol-Myers has a deep drug pipeline. Within it are some very promising cancer drugs that the firm acquired when it bought Medarex last year.

While Bristol-Myers boasts a market cap of over $42 billion, it’s still small enough and attractive enough for one of the drug giants to acquire it. Right now, it’s trading at a reasonable valuation and offers a dividend yield of over 5%.

~ Biogen (Nasdaq: BIIB): With a solid drug pipeline and a blockbuster multiple sclerosis drug in Tysabri, which doesn’t face generic competition until 2015, Biogen could be an attractive takeover target. Activist shareholder Carl Icahn is pushing for the company to be sold.

~ Celgene (Nasdaq: CELG): Some of the healthcare media are speculating that Celgene could be bought out, too. Many large cap pharmaceutical companies would love Celgene’s oncology portfolio, its $2.6 billion in annual sales and earnings per share of over $2. However, the stock is already trading at takeover-like valuation. It’s hard to imagine a pharmaceutical company CEO justifying paying a premium over Celgene’s current price.

~ BioMarin (Nasdaq: BMRN): If the companies I mentioned a moment ago are interested in acquiring Genzyme for its rare disease drugs, they should consider BioMarin in this area, too. BioMarin specializes in rare diseases, whose drugs command premium pricing. Additionally, BioMarin has already proven it can bring drugs to market, as it’s expected to generate nearly $400 million in sales this year and earn $0.10 per share.

Bottom Line: Many pharmaceutical and biotech stocks are cheap right now. And with demand for medicine only increasing and the potential for mergers and acquisitions in the sector heating up, now is a good time to take a look at the group.

Hoping your long go up and your shorts go down,

Source: Marc Lichtenfeld, Healthcare Specialist

The world population is rising by about 80 million people every year. We are expected to reach eight billion people in the next 15 years. That’s a lot of thirsty mouths.

In fact, the demand for water is expected to TRIPLE in the next 50 years. Just consider how much water it takes to produce many of the things we take for granted:

Product Water Needed to Produce
1 Cup of Coffee 37 gallons
1 Glass of Apple Juice 50 gallons
1 Loaf of Bread 150 gallons
1 Hamburger 634 gallons
1 Pair of Blue Jeans 1,800 gallons
1 Bushel of Wheat 5,000 gallons
1 Average Car 39,090 gallons
1 Ton of Steel 62,000 gallons
1 Day of U.S. Newsprint 300 million gallons

We see fresh water all around us, filling lakes, rivers and streams. But the amount of fresh water available to the growing population is truly miniscule.

The problem is that 97% of the water on earth is saltwater. Only 3% is fresh water — and more than two thirds of that is locked up in glaciers or buried deep underground.

That leaves only about 1% of all the water on earth readily accessible for human use!

And, in some parts of the world, the situation is even more dire. Less than 0.01% of the accessible fresh water on earth is available to the entire Middle East — with a population of 203 million!

It doesn’t take an expert to see that’s not enough water — and that those companies that can rectify that situation will make a fortune.

We simply cannot “conserve” our way out of this crisis. The only solution is to find an abundant supply of fresh water.

This is what led President John F. Kennedy to state: “If we could ever competitively — at a cheap rate — get fresh water from saltwater, that would dwarf any other scientific accomplishments.”

The Only Solution to the World’s Water Crisis Has Always Been Too Expensive… Until Now!

The original purpose for this technology was to provide inexpensive cold storage for vegetables.

In 1986 Hakken’s brother had a farm in Norway, overlooking a deep fjord. He wanted to use cold water from the sea to keep his vegetables cold. But the water would have to be pumped 100 feet uphill to the storage building.

That required a lot of energy. And all that water went right back down the hill once it circulated through the cooling unit — a big waste of energy.

But what if he could capture the energy within the force of water moving DOWN the hill… and use it to push the other column of water UP the hill?

That is exactly what Bjorn set out to do.

Thankfully, the thirst for water is not an unquenchable crisis — desalination is the answer.

There are no technology barriers to desalination (also called “desalinization”). The process is simple. We either boil seawater at low pressure and condense the steam (thermal). Or we use high pressure to push it through filtering membranes (reverse osmosis).

The problem is that both of these methods are expensive. They require HUGE amounts of energy. That’s why only about 12 billion gallons of water are desalinated annually –
less than a quarter of one percent of the global demand.

In fact, it was so expensive that China and India found it cheaper to buy water shipped from Lake Superior and Alaska… than to pull fresh water from the ocean!

If water were oil, then discovering an inexpensive way to take the salt out of seawater would be the equivalent of finding an unlimited number of Saudi Arabias. And the company I am about to tell you about has done just that!

ONE COMPANY Holds the Rights to the Technology that Has Solved the World’s Water Crisis!

This company has found a way to make desalination affordable. In fact, their innovation has lowered the cost of desalination to the point that it is CHEAPER than municipal water in some areas.

This Company is to Water What Saudi Arabia is to Oil… Saving the World Has Never Been So Profitable!

From humble beginnings on his brother’s farm, Bjorn Hakken’s invention has become a mission-critical technology in 70% of all new desalination plants (and a rapidly growing number of the 14,000 existing plants)!

This incredible device is revolutionizing the production of clean water. And with a total of 14 U.S. and international patents, they have rock-solid protection for their groundbreaking intellectual property.

Their device is perfected to operate at up to 98% efficiency — just two points away from perpetual motion!

Few machines even come close to this level of efficiency. The engine in the Honda Prius is supposed to be a major breakthrough… and it’s only 37% efficient.

By my calculations, you could make at least +257% over the next year if you invest in this company today.

Hold it longer and you are sitting on potential astronomical gains — too ridiculous to print! And this is not some wild speculation… the company holds 70% of their market and the world’s desalination capacity is about to explode.

Profit from the Rising Tide of Desalination and Make a Boatload From this Life-Saving Technology!

Source: Andy Obermueller, Chief Investment Strategist of Government-Driven Investing
More details here: My Own Portfolio

This is not only a fascinating story, it’s one of the most promising investments I can think of.

It’s a small mining outfit that is literally turning trash into treasure. I think this company is going to make a killing. Here’s why…

It has discovered an ingenious way to extract uranium from coal ash.

I didn’t even know this myself, but coal contains trace amounts of uranium. About 50 parts per million. The uranium stays in the ash after the coal is burned.

This tiny Canadian outfit claims it can extract uranium from coal ash for $35 a pound. The spot price of uranium is about $45 a pound.

So we’re looking at a fat $10 per pound profit.

Not only does it have a patented extraction process, it also has a customer: China. It has signed a deal with the China National Nuclear Corporation to extract uranium from a coal dump.

And let’s be clear: China doesn’t care what the uranium costs, only that it has access to it. China has 21 new nuclear power plants under construction. And they won’t produce a single watt without uranium.

Luckily for China, it has 2.7 billion tons of coal ash. Which means they are sitting on $5 billion of uranium that only this company can extract for them.

At a 22% profit margin of $10 per pound, that’s $1.1 billion in profits. You don’t think that will make this penny stock take off like a rocket?

The nice thing about this pick is that it already has a solid gold mining business. So that takes a lot of the risk out of this small stock. Its uranium recovery project is a bonus.

I think this stock has “10 to 1″ written all over it. It’s a true swing-for-the-fences play.

It’s trading at just under 10 cents a share. At that price you can buy a ton of the stock and have some fun.

So why not take a flyer and buy 50,000 shares?

As soon as this technology is put into the field, you’re going to see a lot of interest in this stock. If that happens, look out. You could get a split and see your 50,000 shares turn into 100,000.

Source: Andy Obermueller, Chief Investment Strategist of Fast-Track Millionaire
More details here: My Own Portfolio