Author Archives: Scalper1

The NYSE Introduces New Rules That Will Disadvantage Small Investors

Summary NYSE is removing stop loss orders and good-till-canceled orders. The stop loss orders were significantly less useful for casual investors, but did provide some excellent opportunities for buying at discounts in illiquid stocks. The removal of good-till-canceled orders is a terrible change that reduces market liquidity by pushing out retail investors. There is a way to mitigate at least part of the impact by arranging conditional orders to trigger a “good-till-date” after the desired price is reached. Investors should use a great deal of caution when learning about using new order types to get around this problem. For investors who haven’t heard, the NYSE released an update to tell traders and investors that they would be eliminating two types of orders. Bloomberg focused on the “stop loss” orders , but the bigger change may be regarding the “good-till-canceled” order. Chris Demuth Jr. had an article out recently that covered some of the changes. I don’t read much of what comes out on Bloomberg , but I do browse through the works of Mr. Demuth Jr. and I appreciated his take on it. I’d like to share my take on the investing implications of each change. No Stop Loss Orders While I’m not a fan of removing tools from the hands of smaller investors, I can understand the exchange wanting to remove stop loss orders. They are used very infrequently, and may contribute to absurd price movements. I’ve often warned readers that I consider stop loss orders to be a terrible way to design a portfolio for failure in the mREIT space. Some of my most successful ideas have been designed specifically to take advantage of market failures, where a sell-off by one group of investors would trigger prices to drop low enough to trigger the stop loss orders. For instance, I predicted that the major news reporting sites would declare a huge miss on earnings for Orchid Island Capital (NYSE: ORC ), because analysts were forecasting “Core EPS” and the company only reported “GAAP EPS”. The extremely different calculations were going to result in the news stations reporting “a huge miss”, when there was no such miss. That was a great trade opportunity for investors. The stop loss orders were a great source of profits in the mREIT sector, because prices tend to drop significantly on the ex-dividend date. Even if the investor had their order designed to be adjusted for dividends, a little irrationality among other players could trigger the price to fall far enough to trigger those orders. When it comes to protecting traders from themselves, removing stop loss orders may actually be a good thing. On the other hand, the stop loss orders may also be used by traders that were shorting a security and wanted to exit their short position if something happened that suddenly drove prices higher. In this case, removing the stop loss does little to help investors, because any investor involved in shorting should be competent enough to know the risks and design their strategy accordingly. Implications Removing stop loss orders should result in less total volatility for traders and investors. Less volatility means lower risk premiums, and therefore, higher fair values, assuming investors maintained the same risk tolerance as before. This should be good for the market overall, but it remains a sad day for me as an investor, because finding an opportunity where stop loss orders would be triggered by an irrational price movement was a great strategy for finding good investments at bargain prices. No Good-Till-Canceled Orders Neither the update from NYSE nor the one from Bloomberg were thorough in defining which good-till-canceled orders would be removed. Were these orders indefinite, or were they orders that would be good for 30-60 days unless canceled? Personally, I find this change to be absolutely absurd. This hurts retail investors in a bad way, and it helps large investors. Allow me to explain how I can get around this rule. If I’m no longer allowed to place a “good-till-canceled” order, I’m still capable of placing a conditional command to enter a new limit order to buy shares if a certain condition, such as a price, is reached. The old order would’ve looked like this: “I want to buy shares of the Schwab U.S. REIT ETF (NYSEARCA: SCHH ) at any time in the next 60 days if those shares can be purchased for $35.00 or less.” The new order would look like this: ” If shares of the Schwab U.S. REIT ETF fall below $35.00, enter a new order for the day that I would like to buy shares if they can be purchased for $35.00 or less”. The only difference in these orders is the amount of work to create the order, and how frequently I might need to reset the orders. I had never bothered using the new order type, because the old order was so simple. For any investor who might be confused with the second order type, this is known as a “good-till-date” order, and there was no reference to the NYSE removing “good-till-date” orders. Since this new system would only enter the order after the price of $35.00 was seen, it would have a fairly solid opportunity for the order to execute. I Loved Good-Till-Canceled A substantial portion of my investment portfolio (excluding mutual funds in employer sponsored accounts) was purchased using this order type. I will admit that in one scenario, I forgot I had left one of these orders open and got a surprise e-mail indicating that my order had finally been triggered several weeks later. No problem, I keep enough cash on hand to cover such orders, and had 3 days to get the funds into my account to cover my purchase. My Favorite Good-Till-Canceled Order The date I got those “surprise” e-mails telling me I had some orders triggered was August 24th. Many investors may remember the date for the very short-term price fluctuation that triggered the NYSE to introduce these changes. On that day, I picked up shares of SCHH at $37.52 and shares of the Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF (NYSEARCA: SCHD ) at $34.59. I’m up quite nicely on both positions. Implications Removing this order type should have the exact opposite impact of what the NYSE claims to want. Those good-till-canceled orders encouraged prices to be more efficient, because they allowed buyers who were aware of the risks to effectively leave someone standing in line to buy up any shares that people wanted to sell at a given price. It requires significantly more selling pressure for prices to fall rapidly when numerous investors have left an order that they would be happy to buy at a certain price. Without the good-till-canceled orders to buy up shares of those ETFs, the crash on August 24th could have been substantially worse. The bigger issue here, in my opinion, is that this creates an unfair competitive advantage for the larger players. Many retail investors may not have access to the tools to place the “new order”, but the large traders have had these tools for a long time and have vastly more complicated models to execute them. The gap between the tools available to normal investors and the tools available to large investors will increase, while the liquidity available in the market will decrease. A reduction in liquidity would increase the volatility of price swings and work in precisely the opposite manner of removing the “stop loss” orders. In this case, the increased volatility would encourage lower fair values, assuming the same risk profile for the investor. Clearing Orders One major reason that the good-till-canceled order was so important is the presence of hard selling or buying activity when the market opens. If investors all swap to using conditional orders to create an order to buy a security, then those orders won’t be on the NYSE’s books. Hard selling could result in the opening price being very low, triggering several new “good-till-date” orders to be introduced to buy the security, and the price immediately popping back up. Every investor who was trying to sell at the moment trading opened would have lost out, because many people desiring to buy at those prices would have been excluded from having their order active until the initial price had been recorded. I may need to look into those conditional orders and see if I can create one that simply checks the date, and if it is before a certain date enters a new “good-till-date” limit order. That would be nice for allowing me to have the order in place before the market opens each day. Unfortunately, each investor wanting this option would need to speak with their brokerage and determine if it is available for their account types, and if they would be permitted to use it. Even if their brokerage offers it, investors should be very careful to ensure they know precisely what they are doing before they experiment with new order types.

Impact Of Tax-Loss Selling On Utility Stocks

Summary The utility sector has been a poor performer this year. Fully regulated utilities have likely been hurt by interest rate fears, while merchant power names have been hurt by lower power prices and tighter environmental regulations. The year end means many investors could be looking to harvest losses from the utility sector for tax purposes, keeping downward pressure on these names until we reach 2016. 2015 has been a tough year for utility stocks. At this point, it is the second worst-performing sector of the year. Only the energy sector, hit by the massive drop in oil prices, has done worse. Table 1 (click to enlarge) Source: FactSet The Utilities Select Sector SPDR ETF (NYSEARCA: XLU ) is down over 8% for the year; its worst performance since the financial crisis. Table 2 (click to enlarge) Source: FactSet In some ways, this 8.1% decline is worse than it appears. Of the 29 current components of the XLU, only six were up for the year as of November 20. Table 3 (click to enlarge) Source: FactSet and The Select Sector SPDR Trust Of these six companies, TECO Energy (NYSE: TE ) and AGL Resources (NYSE: GAS ) got a big boost from becoming acquisition targets. NiSource (NYSE: NI ) and PPL Corporation (NYSE: PPL ) benefitted from corporate restructuring events. NI spun out Columbia Pipeline Group (NYSE: CPGX ) on July 1, and PPL spun out their merchant power business to create Talen Energy Corporation (NYSE: TLN ) on June 1. Pepco Holdings (NYSE: POM ), while down over 3% YTD, was also supported by corporate activity. They are being purchased by Exelon (NYSE: EXC ) for $27.25/share. This deal has been dragging on a long time, and in August the DC Public Service Commission voted against the merger. The stock promptly went below $23. Exelon has continued negotiating in our nation’s capital and the stock is now back near $26. Chart 1 (click to enlarge) Source: FactSet If negative news about the POM/EXC deal appears before year end, a big drop in the stock should be expected, further hurting XLU performance. After such a strong year in 2014, utilities were bound to have a difficult time in 2015. But the year actually started off strong, with utilities up significantly and well ahead of the market. At that point, utility valuations were stretched to record levels (see article here ), and it was going to be difficult for utilities to do anything but go down. The potential of a Fed rate increase has also been a likely culprit in hurting utility shares. Companies with merchant power exposure, like NRG Energy (NYSE: NRG ) and FirstEnergy (NYSE: FE ), have taken big hits because low natural gas prices have led to lower power prices this year. Tightening environmental regulations have also played a role, adding significant costs to keep some plants running. Now, with the end of the year upon us, these beaten-down companies will have another headwind to deal with: tax-loss selling. Investors will be looking for ways to offset any winners, and the utility industry should have lots of names customers can take a loss on. The bottom five XLU components all have losses larger than 20%. Table 4 (click to enlarge) Source: FactSet and The Select Sector SPDR Trust A downward spiral that creates more selling pressure could occur: investors sell the worst performers, hurting YTD XLU performance; which leads more people to sell the XLU, hurting all names in the group; leading to more sales in some of those names, further weakening XLU performance; leading to more tax-loss selling in the XLU. Eventually an equilibrium will be reached. Further risk to the demand for utility stocks could come from underperforming mutual funds that invested in the underperforming utility sector. If these funds suffer from significant customer redemptions, they could be forced to sell utility shares to raise cash. All of this selling pressure makes a year-end rally in utility names appear unlikely. Maybe if the Fed decides to hold off hiking interest rates in their December meeting, the group could get some momentum, but the reality is that utility shares should finish 2015 with their worst-performing year since the financial crisis. Of course, with everybody selling, this could be a buying opportunity. To harvest a tax loss, investors cannot reinstate their position for 30 days after they sell. So sellers of a name will be out of the market for a while. Investors with conviction on certain utility names should consider buying now, while many other people are selling for reasons other than the company’s value. This opportunity will disappear in January.

SPY Vs. Dividend Growth Portfolio

A couple of weeks ago, I asked you why you think you can beat professionals? This led to an interesting conversation about the difference between beating the market and reaching your goals. I think the most important thing is to reach your financial goals. It’s like registering for a run; when you register for a 10K, you don’t mind if you win the run or not; you focus on your own running objective. As long as you reach that goal, your run is a success. This is also a good mentality to apply when investing. After writing this article, I received an email from a reader asking the question about the difference between buying SPY (Spider S&P 500 ETF index) yielding nearly 2% and building a dividend growth stock portfolio: More often than not, I choose not to buy individual stocks when I compare their yield to SPY, which is a core holding in my account. Can you perhaps do a write-up of SPY? It has all the same advantages a good dividend stock has. It has dividend growth, it has a reasonable yield, dividends reinvested in SPY will have the same snowball effect. But, it has a KEY advantage that individual stocks do not – diversification. So how can I determine if an individual stock is a better buy than SPY? When is the decision to to buy an individual stock for its dividend better than my default position of “keep it in SPY”? What return should an individual stock give me for the risk of abandoning SPY’s diversification? What risk premium? I found his question quite interesting as it positioned a global well-diversified and dividend paying investment vehicle trading with very little effort vs. a handpicked dividend growth stock portfolio requiring continuous management. Let’s dig deeper to see what both strategies have to offer… SPY is Not a Dividend Growth Portfolio First, let’s be honest, SPY is not a dividend growth portfolio. This is not its function, regardless if the members of the S&P 500 pay enough dividends to have a yield around 2%. When you look at its past 10 year dividend history payment, you understand better why SPY can’t really replace a dividend growth portfolio: As you can see, dividend payments are quite hectic. This is normal as within the group of the 500 biggest companies, you will have a little bit of everything: Strong growth companies not paying dividend Classic dividend growth companies Companies going through troubles and cutting their dividend Etc. Being a “big company” is not a gauge of success and it is also far from an indication you will see your dividend payments growing. It becomes obvious when you compare the dividend growth in % over the past 10 years compared to a classic dividend growth company such as Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ ): JNJ dividend payments increased steadily year after year and offer double the dividend growth payment than SPY over this period. Besides the dividend growth test fail, there are many other reasons why I’m not a big fan in investing in SPY as a dividend growth investor: It doesn’t follow my dividend growth investing philosophy. Dividend payments are hectic. SPY includes too many “bad companies” I wouldn’t pick. The overall market is not what I want to buy. In the end, there are very limited similarities between a dividend growth portfolio and SPY. The dividend yield may confuse investors, but don’t fall in the trap; if you are looking for a dividend growth investing vehicle, SPY is not the one . What About a Dividend ETF Then? One question leading to another, I wanted to finish this article with a comparison of a dividend growth ETF vs. a handpicked dividend growth portfolio. I’m all about efficiency in life and if I could spend a big three minutes to initiate a transaction in a dividend growth ETF and forget about my investing strategy for the rest of my life, I would gain several hours each year to do other things than manage my portfolio and reading about the stock market. Let’s take the Vanguard Appreciation ETF (NYSEARCA: VIG ) dividend growth and compare it to JNJ again: I’ve taken the five-year view as there were unrealistic increases back in 2007 (dividends doubled within three quarters) and it wasn’t giving a good comparable. Still, even by using the five-year dividend growth period, we can see how JNJ shows a pure and systematic dividend increase while the VIG payment increase is quite hectic. Nonetheless, VIG dividend payment growth is double that of JNJ, one of the most appreciated dividend growth companies on the market. As far as stock price goes, we are at the same pace: In other words; while VIG dividend growth is hectic, any investor would have been better with the ETF than with JNJ. However, it is unfair to compare a diversified ETF with a single company. This is why I did the exercise with my top 10 dividend growth stocks as a portfolio vs. the same ETF: Unfortunately, I can’t perfectly compared this growth portfolio with the VIG as not all data can be used in 2011 and Disney (NYSE: DIS ) decided to pay dividends twice per year instead of once a year explaining the virtual drop on the graph (but it will go back up once the year ends as a second dividend payment will be issue. One thing you can see is that the dividend payment for most companies is steadily increasing without any big jump (besides BlackRock (NYSE: BLK ) in 2011). However, I can compare the price evolution of the portfolio: The average stock price gain is 114.65%, more than double the VIG. Conclusion The conclusion of using ETFs vs. handpicked dividend stocks is similar to the conclusion of my previous post: First and foremost; as long as you reach your financial goals – you probably have the right method, Second; market index ETFs such as SPY are too wide to represent a dividend growth investing strategy. They are good products, but not for dividend investors, Third; similar to market index ETFs, dividend ETFs often includes a too wide number of companies. Handpicked dividend growth stocks, if done wisely, can beat such products. In order to make sure my investment strategy works, I use the VIG as a benchmark. So far, I’m very happy with my results and they justify the efforts I make to manage my portfolio. I think dividend ETFs can help you achieve your financial goals as well if you are not interested in taking the time to manage your own portfolio but still wish to invest in a vehicle paying dividends. Then again; there are no right answers besides the one that makes you comfortable with your financial objectives!