Scalper1 News
Summary PHB is a junk bond with an emphasis on the 1 to 10 year range. The sector allocation looks pretty good but investors should avoid buying both junk bonds and equity in the consumer discretionary sector. Due to correlation with major indexes, the junk bond ETFs show better correlation benefits with equity REIT funds than with the S&P 500. Investors going heavy on domestic non-REIT equity positions should use longer term treasury securities rather than junk bonds. Investors should be seeking to improve their risk adjusted returns. I’m a big fan of using ETFs to achieve the risk adjusted returns relative to the portfolios that a normal investor can generate for themselves after trading costs. I’m working on building a new portfolio and I’m going to be analyzing several of the ETFs that I am considering for my personal portfolio. One of the funds that I’m considering is the PowerShares Fundamental High Yield Corporate Bond Portfolio ETF (NYSEARCA: PHB ). I’ll be performing a substantial portion of my analysis along the lines of modern portfolio theory, so my goal is to find ways to minimize costs while achieving diversification to reduce my risk level. Expense Ratio The expense ratio is .50%, which is high for a bond fund. That should be a material concern to investors. With yields being relatively low by historic measurements, high expense ratios can quickly create a drag on returns. Credit The credit rating allocations are about what you might expect for a “high yield” bond ETF. Simply put, most of the holdings should be junk bonds and they are. I appreciate that Invesco, the fund sponsor, includes the rating data from both S&P and Moody’s. Maturity The maturity range feels fairly standard for a junk bond ETF. No allocation to bonds longer than 10 years and a heavy focus on the 5 to 10 year range. I’d like to see a yield a little higher than 4.51% for investing in the ETF. The exposure to the 5-10 year range feels a little bit heavy for the yield. I would have expected a heavier portion of the portfolio to be in the 1 to 5 year range. Sector When it comes to the sector allocations, I can’t help but appreciate the way PHB did this. The portfolio structure is extremely diversified when it comes to sectors. The one area that is very notably overweight is the consumer discretionary sector. Because that sector is heavily weighted in the junk bond portfolio, I wouldn’t want to be using an allocation to any ETF that was specifically focused on the consumer discretionary sector. Junk bonds, by definition, are bonds with credit concerns. I wouldn’t want to risk being screwed on equity prices while seeing the bond holdings drop in value because of bankruptcies in the sector. As long as this fund is not combined with a position in the consumer discretionary segment or the energy segment, the fund looks like a nice fit for slipping into a portfolio to increase the yield. The goal here is to improve the income from the portfolio so that investors can live off the income without having to sell off any of the principal. Building the Portfolio The sample portfolio I ran for this assessment is one that came out feeling a bit awkward. I’ve had some requests to include biotechnology ETFs and I decided it would be wise to also include a the related field of health care for a comparison. Since I wanted to create quite a bit of diversification, I put in 9 ETFs plus the S&P 500. The resulting portfolio is one that I think turned out to be too risky for most investors and certainly too risky for older investors. Despite that weakness, I opted to go with highlighting these ETFs in this manner because I think it is useful to show investors what it looks like when the allocations result in a suboptimal allocation. The weightings for each ETF in the portfolio are a simple 10% which results in 20% of the portfolio going to the combined Health Care and Biotechnology sectors. Outside of that we have one spot each for REITs, high yield bonds, TIPS, emerging market consumer staples, domestic consumer staples, foreign large capitalization firms, and long term bonds. The first thing I want to point out about these allocations are that for any older investor, running only 30% in bonds with 10% of that being high yield bonds is putting yourself in a fairly dangerous position. I will be highlighting the individual ETFs, but I would not endorse this portfolio as a whole. The portfolio assumes frequent rebalancing which would be a problem for short term trading outside of tax advantaged accounts unless the investor was going to rebalance by adding to their positions on a regular basis and allocating the majority of the capital towards whichever portions of the portfolio had been underperforming recently. Because a substantial portion of the yield from this portfolio comes from REITs and interest, I would favor this portfolio as a tax exempt strategy even if the investor was frequently rebalancing by adding new capital. The portfolio allocations can be seen below along with the dividend yields from each investment. Name Ticker Portfolio Weight Yield SPDR S&P 500 Trust ETF SPY 10.00% 2.11% Health Care Select Sect SPDR ETF XLV 10.00% 1.40% SPDR Biotech ETF XBI 10.00% 1.54% iShares U.S. Real Estate ETF IYR 10.00% 3.83% PowerShares Fundamental High Yield Corporate Bond Portfolio ETF PHB 10.00% 4.51% FlexShares iBoxx 3-Year Target Duration TIPS Index ETF TDTT 10.00% 0.16% EGShares Emerging Markets Consumer ETF ECON 10.00% 1.34% Fidelity MSCI Consumer Staples Index ETF FSTA 10.00% 2.99% iShares MSCI EAFE ETF EFA 10.00% 2.89% Vanguard Long-Term Bond ETF BLV 10.00% 4.02% Portfolio 100.00% 2.48% The next chart shows the annualized volatility and beta of the portfolio since October of 2013. (click to enlarge) Risk Contribution The risk contribution category demonstrates the amount of the portfolio’s volatility that can be attributed to that position. You can see immediately since this is a simple “equal weight” portfolio that XBI is by far the most risky ETF from the perspective of what it does to the portfolio’s volatility. You can also see that BLV has a negative total risk impact on the portfolio. When you see negative risk contributions in this kind of assessment it generally means that there will be significantly negative correlations with other asset classes in the portfolio. The position in TDTT is also unique for having a risk contribution of almost nothing. Unfortunately, it also provides a weak yield and weak return with little opportunity for that to change unless yields on TIPS improve substantially. If that happened, it would create a significant loss before the position would start generating meaningful levels of income. A quick rundown of the portfolio I put together the following chart that really simplifies the role of each investment: Name Ticker Role in Portfolio SPDR S&P 500 Trust ETF SPY Core of Portfolio Health Care Select Sect SPDR ETF XLV Hedge Risk of Higher Costs SPDR Biotech ETF XBI Increase Expected Return iShares U.S. Real Estate ETF IYR Diversify Domestic Risk PowerShares Fundamental High Yield Corporate Bond Portfolio ETF PHB Strong Yields on Bond Investments FlexShares iBoxx 3-Year Target Duration TIPS Index ETF TDTT Very Low Volatility EGShares Emerging Markets Consumer ETF ECON Enhance Foreign Exposure Fidelity MSCI Consumer Staples Index ETF FSTA Reduce Portfolio Risk iShares MSCI EAFE ETF EFA Enhance Foreign Exposure Vanguard Long-Term Bond ETF BLV Negative Correlation, Strong Yield Correlation The chart below shows the correlation of each ETF with each other ETF in the portfolio. Blue boxes indicate positive correlations and tan box indicate negative correlations. Generally speaking lower levels of correlation are highly desirable and high levels of correlation substantially reduce the benefits from diversification. (click to enlarge) Conclusion This is a solid fund in most aspects. I’d like to see a slightly higher yield for the level of duration risk but that isn’t too bad. The expense ratio could use some work, but it still has some merit in a portfolio. The most interesting thing for investors is that the fund has a fairly high correlation with the S&P 500. When investors are using modern portfolio theory, they may notice that bonds typically have a higher correlation with REITs than with the S&P 500. In this portfolio the REIT exposure is coming from IYR. PHB has a correlation of only .39 with the REITs while posting .60 with the S&P 500, so that should be an interesting factor for investors. Essentially this is suggesting that this kind of junk bond fund makes more sense beside equity REITs than it does with the S&P 500. In short, if investors are using equity REITs as a major source of income, they may want to consider diversifying that position to include one in junk bonds due to the lower correlation of the two investments. Since both investments produce a material amount of current income that is an appealing factor for the dividend growth investor that needs a little more yield. On the other hand, investors that are going very heavy on domestic equity (excluding REITs) would be better served by long term treasury ETFs because the correlation between junk bonds and the S&P 500 is a little too high. Scalper1 News
Scalper1 News