Tag Archives: alternative

Closed-End Funds Strategies For 2014 And 2015: CEFs For Buying And Selling

Summary GrowthIncome has ranked the Closed-End Funds for 2014 versus 2013 for 14 categories on a total return basis (yield + Appreciation). The losers, worst performing stocks in 2014, sometimes have become the best performing stocks in 2015. As this theory goes, some of the worst performing stock could be “Stars” in 2015. Also, the best performing stocks could be the worst. Losses to Stars: Over the years, the poorest performing closed-end funds (NYSEMKT: CEF ) at the end of the year often turned around and became the “stars” of the new-year. (In 2013, GenEqFnds was in 1st place; SingleStMuniFnds and NatlMuniBndFnds were in last place.) As a result, GrowthIncome has produced the following CEF investment strategies reflecting this past year’s performance. In addition, we have provided lists for the 10 best and worst CEF performers during this period with regards to Total Returns (Appreciation + Yield). As a result, you will find investment selections as a result of this analysis. Dow Vs CEFs: During 2014, the Dow Jones Industrial Average registered a 7.5% advance in stock prices with an average distribution yield of 2.0%, resulting in a total return of 9.5%. The CEF universe, representing over 560 Closed End Funds spanning 14 different categories, registered a 0.1% advance in stock prices with an average distribution yield of 7.2% for a total return of 7.3%. (click to enlarge) What’s Ahead? The rate on 10-Year Treasuries ended 2014 at 2.171% and further slipped to 1.95% on January 9, 2015. To the surprise of many economists and investors alike, this decline betrayed expectations as many believed that rates on 10-Year Treasuries would end up near 3.0% by the end of 2014. Federal Reserve: This betrayal of expectations was the result of the Federal Reserve keeping rates near “zero” so as not to disrupt a fragile recovery for the U.S. economy. However, as it became apparent that people were getting back to work and that consumers were spending money, the Fed ended America’s quantitative easing in an effort to slowly pull back its foot from the gas pedal. Yet Japan, China and the Eurozone are starting to pick up where America left off through various forms of monetary policy in an attempt to support their own struggling economies. Helped by the price of oil, which has fallen over 50%, the global economy could be set to enter a deflationary cycle and push the Federal Reserve to further delay rate hikes in America. 2014 Best Total Returns: The table below shows the top 10 performing Closed End Funds averaging a total return (appreciation and yield) of 35.5% for 2014. 3 WrldEqFnds (2 India and China) and 4 SpecEqFnds (2 real estate, utility and energy development) were among the winners. MS India Investment (NYSE: IIF ) was up 53.8%, and India Fund (NYSE: IFN ) was up 30%. (However, India Fund’s total dividends ($1.86/share) were made up of long-term capitals gains resulting in a total yield of 7.2% and a total return of 38.5%.) (click to enlarge) 2014 Worst Total Returns: Below is a table of the 10 worst performing Closed End Funds averaging a total return of -22.6% for 2014. 7 of the 10 were WrldEqFnds, a category which also had a strong showing in the top 10 CEF performers. WrldEqFnds with assets focused in countries dependent on oil were hit especially hard. Templeton Russia & East Europe (NYSE: TRF ) and Central Europe Russia & Turkey (NYSE: CEE ) were number “one” and “two” for the negative side, which is not surprising as economic sanctions have exacerbated the negative effect of oil’s decline. New Germany Fund (NYSE: GF ) was down -26.9% during 2014. However, it will pay out $3.17 per share on 1/28/2015 (ex- date of 12/29/14). The Thai Fund (NYSE: TTF ) will have a capital gains distribution of $3.52 per share on 1/16/15. Thai Fund will likely go down by a similar amount. Aberdeen Chile Fund (NYSEMKT: CH ) had 79% of its annual dividend come as a return of capital (ROC) while Cornerstone Progressive Return (NYSEMKT: CFP ) had 75% of its annual dividend come as a ROC. Though the yields look attractive, this asset base erosion keeps these funds far from GrowthIncome’s recommendation list. (click to enlarge) Things to Buy : If you want to play a “Dogs of the CEF Universe” method then we recommend buying Central Europe Russia & Turkey , Mexico Fund (NYSE: MXF ) and New Germany Fund . Central Europe Russian & Turkey Fund has 47% in Russia’s oil conglomerates and 53% in Poland, Turkey and Greece. If you want to establish a position, you may want to do it in thirds. The Mexico Funds and the New Germany Fund has little oil. (click to enlarge) Things to Sell: In a reverse “Dogs of the CEF Universe” play, we have chosen to recommend the sale of both Reaves Utility Income Fund (NYSEMKT: UTG ) and the real estate funds ( Cohen & Steers Qty Inc Realty (NYSE: RQI ) and ( LMP Real Estate Fund (NYSE: RIT )) and EV Municipal Income (NYSE: EVN ) as they will likely perform poorly in a rate hike environment. (click to enlarge) Caveats: We have chosen the losers in 2014 to be the winners in 2015. This is where we get interest rates to go up in 2015. As said by Lloyn Blackfein of Goldman Sachs: Though the Fed says that interest rates may go up, it is the “huddle mass” that says where interest rates may go up too.

Consumer Staples ETF: XLP No. 4 Select Sector SPDR In 2014

Summary The Consumer Staples exchange-traded fund finished fourth by return among the nine Select Sector SPDRs in 2014. Along the way, the ETF had a big up month in November (5.54 percent) and a big down month in January (-5.16 percent). Seasonality analysis indicates the fund could have a tough first quarter. The Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR ETF (NYSEARCA: XLP ) in 2014 ranked No. 4 by return among the Select Sector SPDRs that chop the S&P 500 into nine morsels. On an adjusted closing daily share-price basis, XLP ascended to $48.49 from $41.90, a climb of $6.59, or 15.73 percent. Accordingly, it led its parent proxy SPDR S&P 500 Trust ETF (NYSEARCA: SPY ) by 2.26 percentage points and lagged its sibling Utilities Select Sector SPDR ETF (NYSEARCA: XLU ) by -13.01 points. (XLP closed at $48.96 Monday.) XLP ranked No. 3 among the sector SPDRs in the fourth quarter, when it behaved better than SPY by 3.36 percentage points and worse than XLU by -4.92 points. And XLP ranked No. 7 among the sector SPDRs in December, when it performed worse than XLU and SPY by -4.52 and -0.69 percentage points, in that order. Figure 1: XLP Monthly Change, 2014 Vs. 1999-2013 Mean (click to enlarge) Source: This J.J.’s Risky Business chart is based on analyses of adjusted closing monthly share prices at Yahoo Finance . XLP behaved a lot better in 2014 than it did during its initial 15 full years of existence based on the monthly means calculated by employing data associated with that historical time frame (Figure 1). The same data set shows the average year’s weakest quarter was the first, with a relatively small negative return, and its strongest quarter was the fourth, with an absolutely large positive return. Generally consistent with this pattern, the ETF had a huge gain in the fourth quarter last year. Figure 2: XLP Monthly Change, 2014 Versus 1999-2013 Median (click to enlarge) Source: This J.J.’s Risky Business chart is based on analyses of adjusted closing monthly share prices at Yahoo Finance. XLP also performed a lot better in 2014 than it did during its initial 15 full years of existence based on the monthly medians calculated by using data associated with that historical time frame (Figure 2). The same data set shows the average year’s weakest quarter was the first, with a relatively small positive return, and its strongest quarter was the fourth, with an absolutely large positive return. Clearly, this means there is no historical statistical tendency for the ETF to explode in Q1. Figure 3: XLP’s Top 10 Holdings and P/E-G Ratios, Jan. 9 (click to enlarge) Note: The XLP holding-weight-by-percentage scale is on the left (green), and the company price/earnings-to-growth ratio scale is on the right (red). Source: This J.J.’s Risky Business chart is based on data at the XLP microsite and FinViz.com (both current as of Jan. 9). It is an article of faith (and statistical interpretation) hereabouts that so-called PUV analysis is better than psychoanalysis in determining Mr. Market’s state of mind. So what is PUV analysis? It is basically the study of the behaviors of XLP, XLU and the Health Care Select Sector SPDR ETF (NYSEARCA: XLV ) in comparison with their sibling Select Sector SPDRs. If the PUV cluster of ETFs ranks in or near the top third of the sector SPDRs by return during a given period, then I believe market participants are in risk-off mode; if the PUV cluster of ETFs ranks in or near the bottom third of the sector SPDRs by return over a given period, then I think market participants are in risk-on mode. Given the relative performances of the low-beta PUV cluster members (aka XLP, XLU and XLV) that led them to finish in three of the top four spots among the sector SPDRs last year, I believe market participants were in risk-off mode. And I think they will continue to be so this year, with changes in policy at the U.S. Federal Reserve the biggest reason why. Despite the long-term sector rotation into the PUV cluster at this late stage of the economic/market cycle, the valuations of XLP’s top 10 and other holdings may be a drag on the ETF’s price appreciation in the foreseeable future (Figure 3). Numbers reported by S&P Senior Index Analyst Howard Silverblatt supported this hypothesis Dec. 31, when he pegged the P/E-G ratio of the S&P 500 consumer-staples sector at 2.12, which is pretty rich for the blood of at least one PUV analyst (i.e., me). Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein by the author do not constitute an investment recommendation, and they are unsuitable for employment in the making of investment decisions. The opinions expressed herein address only certain aspects of potential investment in any securities and cannot substitute for comprehensive investment analysis. The opinions expressed herein are based on an incomplete set of information, illustrative in nature, and limited in scope. In addition, the opinions expressed herein reflect the author’s best judgment as of the date of publication, and they are subject to change without notice.

Atlanta Fed Lockhart Ambiguity And GLD

Summary Lockhart will be a new voting FOMC member this year and his first speech of 2015 starts off with a bullish note which justifies rates normalization. Strategic ambiguity of rate hikes in the middle of the year and Lockhart worries about mixed signals in first half of 2015. On mixed reading and to be on the safe side, Lockhart will advocate a later FOMC rate hike and downplays the importance of actual rate hikes. Lockhart concedes that the FOMC Majority view of liftoff date might be earlier than his preference and is willing to be different. GLD short position should be pared down on increased uncertainty over the outlook on FOMC tendency and supported by recent GLD price direction. Changing FOMC Landscape The shortcut in investment is to ask for an answer as if these answers are pre-determined at the back of the textbook. This is the path towards mediocre investment results at best, losing investment results at worst. The investment landscape is fluid and ever changing. The best example would be the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) which would be deciding on the first liftoff of Federal Funds Rates and the market consensus would be in the middle of 2015. The FOMC has emphasized again and again that the exact date of liftoff are data dependent. The general market agreement is that the recovery since 2009 to 2014 has been excellent in the United States and the data dependent refers to U.S. economic data for the first half of 2015 given the soft global growth conditions. Another change for the start of 2015 is the changing voting members of the FOMC itself. The regional presidents of Dallas, Minneapolis, Cleveland and Philadelphia will make way for the regional presidents of Chicago, Richmond, Atlanta and San Francisco. Lockhart Bullishness and Support of Rates Normalization In this article, we will focus on the recent speech of Atlanta President Dennis Lockhart given to the Rotary Club of Atlanta on 12 January 2015. As he will have a deciding vote in the FOMC this year, this speech adds on a new significance and his opinions matter more now. His opinions are not easily discernible from his speech and it contains both hawkish and dovish elements in it. Both sides will be presented in this article and I will leave it to readers to decide for themselves before I present my opinion and recommended actions. It has been said that everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts. At the beginning of this speech, Lockhart mentioned the strong recovery of the U.S. from 2009 to 2014: As I look back on 2014 and look ahead to 2015, I can comfortably assert that, more and more, the U.S. economy is hitting on all cylinders. The recovery that began in 2009 is well-advanced, and we are getting closer to a point where the Fed’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), the body that formulates monetary policy, can begin a process of normalizing the interest-rate environment. That process will begin with so-called “liftoff”-that is, the first increase in the policy rate. (click to enlarge) Lockhart’s assessment can be backed up from the chart above. The United States GDP growth is indicated by the solid line and the left hand side growth scale while Europe is represented by the dotted line and the right hand side growth scale. The U.S. growth is strong by itself as seen from the -6% recovery in the depth of the crisis to 5% for the third quarter of 2015. The full year growth for 2014 is expected to come in at more than 4%. Europe in contrast dropped by almost -3% and its growth is still below 1% in 2014 after 5 years. Strategic Ambiguity of Actual Rate Hikes While this forms the basis for the normalization of interest rates by the Fed, we are still unsure when the actual liftoff date will be and on the pace of the increase of interest rates. The pace refers to whether the next increase will be the normal 25 basis points or will the FOMC surprise the market with a 50 basis points increase. This is not addressed in Lockhart speech but interested readers can refer to my 2 part articles, here and here . Lockhart speech does give us a time frame for his expected next rate hike which he deploys the use of strategic ambiguity purposely in the quote below: If that is indeed the case, I believe the first action to raise interest rates will in all likelihood be justified by the middle of the year. The phrase “middle of the year” is admittedly not very precise. That’s purposeful on my part. This would represent the mid point of his desired window of the next rate hike from the 16-17 June 2015 to 28-29 July 2015 meetings. However, Lockhart has made it clear that this is not entirely clear as it would depend greatly on the ‘noise’ or mixed reading in the market. He has made it clear that even though he sees that the market has made a strong recovery at the very start of the speech, he is not keen to jump start the liftoff unless he has a clear picture of the recovery in the first half of 2015. This would mean that the economic data for the first 3 months of 2015 will be crucial to Lockhart given the time lag of economic report which can be from 1 to 2 months. Lockhart’s Slightly Dovish Tendencies If the economic reading remains to be mixed or ‘noisy’ as he calls it, then he will be tempted to delay his vote until the third quarter of 2015 or further. Indeed he downplayed the importance of the actual month of the liftoff taking the long term view that over the long term, the actual date of the liftoff wouldn’t matter. If Lockhart started his speech on a bullish note cheering the recovery of the economy ever since 2009, he ended with a slightly dovish note, he noted that there are economic fundamentals that are not yet resolved despite the economy recovery. The economic recovery did not fully address the issues of long term fiscal challenges, the strength and prospects of the workforce, skill, capacity and health of the workforce (which may explain the falling wage pressures despite the drop in unemployment; more people are finding work in low skill and lowly paid jobs), infrastructure quality and innovation funding. While Lockhart acknowledge that these challenges are beyond the reach of monetary policy, monetary policy has a role to play to facilitate the recovery of these economic fundamentals. To me, this is the most dovish aspect of Lockhart’s speech. Of course, these economic fundamentals do not have direct connection with the Fed’s mandates of price stability, maximum employment and financial stability. The primary gauge for price stability is the inflation figures, unemployment rate for maximum employment and the lack of bad news for financial stability. Of course, the Fed can use wage pressures to force up inflation and we will be in for a long period of accommodation but this will put a strain on its financial stability mandate. In its recent December 2014 press conference, the Fed has made it clear that they are willing to wait until 2017 to reach their 2% inflation target. Hence it would appear that even when the Fed is urging patience in its next rate hike, it is also showing patience in achieving its inflation target. FOMC Majority View This is repeated again in Lockhart speech in a slightly different form: The key liftoff decision criteria ought to be closely linked to the FOMC’s two principal policy objectives-maximum employment and low and stable inflation. In my view, the biggest factor influencing the actual timing of a liftoff decision should be the Committee’s confidence that these objectives will be achieved in an acceptable timeframe and, especially, that inflation will move at deliberate speed toward the target of 2 percent per annum. Lockhart is aware that his view on the timing of the liftoff may be different from the majority view of the FOMC. Influential members of the FOMC such as FOMC Vice Chair William Dudley and Fed Vice Chair and FOMC Member Stanley Fischer had indicated last month of their more bullish outlook for the economy. Conclusion and Investment Action My conclusion is that Lockhart is signaling a slightly less bullish tendency to hike rates overall despite his bullish opening statements to his speech. The first quarter of 2015 will be crucial to his decision to raise rates in the June and July 2015 FOMC meetings. We saw a record of 3 dissents in the December 2014 meeting by the regional presidents of Dallas (Fisher) and Philadelphia (Plosser) in the bullish camp and Minneapolis (Kocherlakota) in the dovish camp. All 3 regional presidents will be rotated out of the FOMC this year and will lose their vote. The upcoming FOMC leanings are still unknown and we will know soon on 28 January 2015. Given the uncertainty of the FOMC leanings and this slightly dovish but unclear tendency of this new FOMC voter, one should stay on the sidelines until there is clarity from the FOMC meeting later this month. The SPDR Gold Trust ETF (NYSEARCA: GLD ) is heavily influenced by the FOMC meeting as a gauge of the direction of further inflation trends. GLD is used as a inflation hedge and it will likely appreciate when there is threat of higher inflation. Europe is in the edge of deflation and it remains to be seen that Japan will be successful in fighting deflation. The only major source of inflation would come from the United States and the Fed has indicated its willingness to endure below target inflation until 2017. The case for a bearish GLD comes from the tightening of the Fed rates which will increase investment cost and reduce inflation. Although we know that the FOMC will raise rates sooner or later, it is the timing that will affect the short term price action of GLD. Although my view slightly biased towards earlier, this speech has pushed it slightly to later. Hence the more prudent approach will be to wait and watch the next FOMC by the sidelines for more clarity before deciding our next move. (click to enlarge) We can see the market uncertainty in the price of GLD as seen in the chart above. We have seen nascent strength in GLD in the past 6 trading days. This could represent the market pricing in the possibility of a later rate hike than the June 2015 rate hike with the possibility of third or fourth quarter rate hike. This could also mean that GLD is ranging in uncertainty as it awaits new trading signals. GLD remains the best instrument to trade the price of gold despite critics disillusion with GLD by pointing out on the red flags in its prospectus with regards to audit issues which has been repeatedly mentioned in the comments page in my past articles. GLD has a market capitalization of $28.08 billion and last daily transaction volume of 8.3 million. This is the most liquid equity on the New York Stock Exchange that you can find for trading fluctuations in gold prices. For investors who have accumulated short positions on GLD from my previous opinion pieces, this is the time to pare them down until further clarity can be found at the end of the month.