Tag Archives: alternative

LQD: This Huge Bond Fund Looks Very Solid

Summary LQD offers investors exposure primarily to the 3 to 10 year portion of the bond market with 27% going to the very long portion of the yield curve. Allocations to the very long end of the yield curve (over 20 years) combine with investment grade credit quality to create negative correlation with the S&P 500. The expense ratio is a little higher than I like to see, but it isn’t too bad. Compared to a large bid-ask spread on other bond ETFs, total ownership cost should be attractive. It appears the fund has free trading through TD Ameritrade and Fidelity. The iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: LQD ) is a huge bond ETF. The ETF has around $24 billion in assets under management. While the additional size may not be a substantial factor for shareholders, the average trading volume over 900,000 shares translates into around $10 million per day. For investors that want to be able to move in and out of the bond market, high liquidity is a huge advantage since it reduces the bid-ask spread. Expenses The expense ratio for LQD is.15%. This isn’t the best expense ratio an investor can find, but isn’t too high either. The real question here is how long an investor would plan to hold the fund. If the holding period is several years then there is an advantage to going for a rock bottom expense ratio. Some of the smaller bond ETFs have demonstrated bid-ask spreads greater than 1%. That can be a real pain. Crossing that bid-ask spread once would be equivalent to the expense ratio for 7 years. Add in that investors are only going to save a few basis points and there are some material advantages from the better liquidity of LQD. Yield The yield is 3.46%. It isn’t very high, but as you’ll see when we go through the portfolio this is investment grade corporate debt with only moderate duration exposure. Duration The following chart demonstrates the sector exposure for this bond fund: This is a fairly nice collection. The fund is pretty much excluding short duration bonds that have fairly weak interest rates in favor of holding those along the middle of the yield curve. To boost yields there is also a material allocation to the very long duration securities. Sectors The following chart demonstrates the sector exposure for this bond fund: I don’t see a huge problem here. The fund avoids having a huge exposure to the energy sector which is beneficial since the falling prices could trigger downgrades for several of the smaller companies in the sector. Since the fund is holding investment grade debt and has an enormous amount of assets, having to sell off bonds from a smaller issuer after a downgrade could push the price of those bonds down due to illiquidity of the underlying bonds. The allocation list goes on to include several incredibly tiny sector allocations. If you wish to see the full list, it is available on the fund’s website . Credit The next major issue to look at is the credit rating of the companies in the fund. The debt is investment grade, but the fund is walking the line in that regard to generate higher yields. As long as the management is watching the underlying liquidity, I don’t see a problem. Notice that there is a very little investment in AAA rated debt. This fund intends to take on some credit risk to enhance returns, but it doesn’t intend to take on much. For the investor seeking stronger yields than treasuries can provide without the credit risk of junk bond funds, this is a fairly reasonable compromise. By focusing on investment grade debt and incorporating some longer maturities the fund retains a negative correlation with the S&P 500. Over the last 2 years that correlation was -.15. For the investor that likes to rebalance their holdings occasionally and values negative correlation for the market the liquidity here really shines. Conclusion Overall this is a fairly solid bond fund. The duration risk is not overwhelming, but it is enough to generate negative correlation to the broader stock market. For any shorter term bond investments, the liquidity here trumps the difference in expense ratios. I did a quick search on brokerages with free trading on the ETF since an investor planning to rebalance or adjust their position frequently would want to avoid commissions. It appears TD Ameritrade and Fidelity are offering commission free trading on LQD. I’m giving this bond fund a 9.5/10 rating. If the expense ratio dipped under .10%, it would be a very solid 10.

PJP: Will Big Pharma Continue To Outperform In 2016?

Summary This $1.59 Bln ETF has been a steady performer this year. Was December’s shareholder distribution a nice holiday gift? Will a defensive strategy for investors and further healthcare reform benefit investors going forward? We answer these questions and provide our recommendation on this attractive sector fund. The PowerShares Dynamic Pharmaceuticals Portfolio ETF (NYSEARCA: PJP ) is a well established, (June 23, 2005), pure pharmaceutical ETF, with a small but well capitalized portfolio of 23 companies, that are equal weighted. The underlying index, the Dynamix Pharmaceutical Intellidex Index with the symbol {DZR} has 2X holdings. Both the Fund and the Index are rebalanced and reconstituted in February, May, August and November. Many of the most well known firms in the pharmaceutical industry are within this ETF and it has attracted a fair sized institutional following and would be considered a “satellite” holding, as per Morningstar. We decided to analyze this attractive fund to see if the returns it has exhibited in 2015 will continue and how it will perform in a rising rate environment in 2016. As expected, our market capitalization did not have any surprises but is informative. PJP Market Cap Market Capitalization Weight Large cap 63.60% Small cap 24.40% Micro-cap 12.00% This is courtesy of xtf.com. Morningstar, as we previously noted uses a slightly different categorization. They state Giant at 43.95%, Large 20.21%, Medium: 4.45%, Small: 23.77% and Micro: 7.62%. In general it would be considered a large capitalized growth fund. It is interesting that there are no medium sized firms in this ETF, in terms of capitalization. We will explain why shortly after reviewing the industry sectors of the ETF. In terms of the style of the firms in the ETF, this is confirmed in our analysis. PJP Style Style Objective Weight Growth 65.30% Blend 17.60% Pure Growth 8.20% Pure Value 0.00% Value 8.90% These numbers concur with the fund sponsor, PowerShares (Invesco), who uses Large-Cap Growth at 36.15%, Large-Cap Blend at 22.48%, and Small-cap Growth at 32.08%. Only Large-Cap Value and Mid-cap Growth are a distant 4.99% and 4.29%, respectively. Though the fund is based upon U.S. securities, there is a rather small exposure to the euro. PJP Country/Currency Exposure Country Weight Currency Weight United States 96.108% USD 96.108% Ireland 3.892% euro 3.892% This euro weighting applies to well known Ireland based firm, Perrigo Company PLC (NYSE: PRGO ). PRGO was in the news in 2015 when Mylan Labs (NASDAQ: MYL ) failed in an attempted takeover of Perrigo. This exposure, even with a large move in the dollar-euro, should be negligible to this ETF in 2016. Our sector weight is obviously 100% Healthcare, but the industry weightings within the sector is informative. PJP Industry exposure Industry Weight Pharmaceuticals 61.75% Biotechnology 30.27% Medical Equipment/Health Care Equipment & Supplies 7.98% Our industry weighting here sheds light on the nature of the market cap and style of the firms in the ETF. The majority of the Biotech firms would fit into the Small-Cap Growth market cap. Once a firm reaches scale within Biotech either through product developed or approval on a new drug or medical device, it is either acquired or “rolled-up” into another biotech or pharmaceutical firm. As such, there is little room both in the ETF and in the marketplace for a Mid-cap Biotech firm. As noted, with over 30% of the ETF in Biotech and with a long business cycle it is safe to assume that develops will continue in the sector, regardless of the economy in 2016. Using this ETF as a defensive position in 2016 is quite appropriate. This was our similar interpretation when we recently analyzed the First Trust NYSE Arca Biotechnology Index ETF (NYSEARCA: FBT ) . In order to determine the overall risks and rewards, we decided to analyze the entire portfolio. Due to its small size it was not overwhelming, but simply whelming. We analyzed all 23 components, their symbols, ratings, (Moody’s and S&P), if any, and their weight within the ETF and the underlying index {DZR}. In this fund’s case we will also show their individual year to date and 12 month performance. PJP Portfolio Name/Symbol 12 month return Ratings, (Moody’s/S&P) Weight- PJP Weight- Index, {DZR} Eli Lilly & Co. (NYSE: LLY ) 21.96% A2/AA- 5.108% 5.00% Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (NYSE: BMY ) 15.76% A2/A+ 5.060% 5.00% Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ ) -1.28% Aaa/AAA 5.043% 5.00% Amgen Inc (NASDAQ: AMGN ) 0.06% Baa1/A 4.978% 5.00% Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE ) 3.06% A1/AA 4.952% 5.00% Merck & Co Inc (NYSE: MRK ) -8.53% A1/AA 4.875% 5.00% Allergan plc (NYSE: AGN ) 21.06% Baa1/BBB- 4.845% 5.00% Gilead Sciences Inc. (NASDAQ: GILD ) 10.44% A3/A- 4.774% 5.00% Akorn Inc. (NASDAQ: AKRX ) 1.17% B1/B 4.446% 4.00% Lannett Co. Inc. (NYSE: LCI ) -3.47% B2/B+ 4.379% 4.00% Novavax Inc. (NASDAQ: NVAX ) 43.24% NR/NR 4.326% 4.00% Celgene Inc. (NASDAQ: CELG ) 7.75% Baa2/BBB+ 4.316% 4.00% Mylan NV -4.83% Baa3/BBB- 4.219% 4.00% Biogen Inc. (NASDAQ: BIIB ) -11.71% Baa1/A- 4.105% 4.00% Ligand Pharmaceuticals LGND 104.61% NR/NR 4.072% 4.00% Baxter International Inc. (NYSE: BAX ) -5.80% Baa2/A- 4.032% 4.00% Abbott Laboratories (NYSE: ABT ) -1.64% A2/A+ 3.954% 4.00% Depomed Inc (NASDAQ: DEPO ) 20.08% NR/NR 3.922% 4.00% Perrigo Co. PLC. -11.10% Baa3/BBB 3.904% 4.00% Impax Laboratories Inc. (NASDAQ: IPXL ) 35.76% B1/BB 3.880% 4.00% Prestige Brands Holdings Inc. (NYSE: PBH ) 43.56% B2/B+ 3.710% 4.00% Heron Therapeutics Inc. ( OTC:HRTX ) 183.38% NR/NR 3.695% 4.00% Medicines Co/The (NASDAQ: MDCO ) 33.17% NR/NR 3.403% 4.00% As per the fund’s prospectus, the fund invests in proportion to the weightings of the index. These weightings shift often due to changes in share value over time. Our top 10 holdings represent 48.46%, while the bottom 13 represent 51.538%. The index is fairly evenly fixed at either 5.00% or 4.00% weights. The performance of the individual holdings are of course slightly muted due to no position having an overweight influence. Fortunately, the outsized performance of Heron Therapeutics at 183.38% for the year easily eclipses any loss from Biogen at -11.71% or Perrigo at -11.10%. A few of the companies in the fund have been mentioned as takeover targets after the failed acquisition of Perrrigo by Mylan, MYL. One company mentioned in Bloomberg is Impax Laboratories. It will be interesting to see how the Pharmaceutical and Biotech landscape changes in 2016 as continued talk on healthcare and pharmaceutical price reform influence the sector. One thing we are fairly certain of is that the sector will not be quiet no matter how robust or sluggish the U.S. or global economy is. As noted above we also did a credit rating analysis on the portfolio. The breakdown is informative. PJP Underlying Credit Ratings S&P Weight Moody’s Weight Upper Investment Grade 33.766% Upper Investment Grade 41.853% Aaa 5.043% AAA 5.043% A1 9.827% AA 9.827% A2 14.122% A+ 9.014% A3 4.774% A/A- 4.978%/12.991% Lower Investment Grade 30.399% Lower Investment Grade 13.380% Baa1 13.928% BBB+ 4.316% Baa2 8.348% BBB- 9.064% Baa3 8.123% Non Investment Grade 16.415% Non Investment Grade 16.415% BB 3.880% B1 8.326% B+ 8.089% B2 8.089% B 4.446% Nonrated 19.418% Nonrated 19.418% While it is noteworthy that the some of the highest rated, (in terms of debt) securities such as JNJ (-1.28% 12 month performance) didn’t break even, it is not surprising. The companies in this ETF that have taken the greatest risks and have some of the poorest balance sheets and lowest credit ratings, produced outstanding results. With a combined 35.833% of the ETF’s underlying credits in non-investment grade and non-rated securities we expect the outsized returns to continue in the NR or lower rated securities. Fortunately, due to the opportunities and continued growth in the marketplace, established companies such as Eli Lilly still outperform (+21.96% 12 month) the general market and are highly likely to do so in 2016. Regardless of the underlying credit ratings, the performance of the holdings should be quite impressive for shareholders in 2016. Based upon the components and structure we analyzed the overall performance of the ETF and the index. PJP’s Performance, Fees and Recommendation Category PJP {ETF} DZR {Index} Net Expense Ratio .56% NA Turnover Ratio 47.00% NA YTD Return 10.68% 11.19% 1-Year Total Return 9.58% 9.97% Dividend Yield/SEC Yield 3.85%/0.56% NA Beta (Shares vs. Morningstar U.S. Healthcare Tr)/holdings 1.18, (11/30/15)/ .90 NA P/E Ratio FY1/current 22.42/20.04 NA Price/Book Ratio FY1/current 4.42/3.82 NA Our net expense ratio of 0.56% compares favorably against an asset median of 0.51%. Our turnover ratio of 47% is much higher than the asset class median of 18.00%. It basically reflects the quick discarding of poor performers and acquisitions. The divided yield was 3.85% for the year and reflects quarterly income with the majority, ($2.47021 per share) paid in December. The annual short term gains paid this year on December 31 are $1.13178 per share. This is a large reduction from 2014’s total of $1.65068, which included $0.34712 in long term gains along with $1.30356 in short term gains. Overall we are quick satisfied with the 2015 distribution but do realize there are tax implications from some share holders who reinvest their gains. Taking into consideration the market year to date return and the total distributions we calculated a total return of approximately 14.28% for the year. The constant discussion of healthcare reform and price gouging actions, (whether morally or commercially justified) will continue in 2016. In any event, we expect the underlying large and growing components to continue significant growth into 2016. We do expect some of the names in this ETF to be acquired over the next year and new products that are in the pipeline to be approved. In addition, institutions only own 19.32% of this fund, according to Fidelity. While we would expect more participation from institutions, we feel that the majority of shareholders here will be quite patient with this ETF as a “satellite” holding and not sell on a whim. As it is an election year, and there has already been significant pontificating on pharmaceutical prices and the general nature of the pharmaceutical business, we do not expect volatility in the sector to subside. One positive for this sector is whether the economy contracts in the U.S. or globally, this sector will maintain its defensive status going forward. We recommend a strong buy of this attractive sector fund into 2016 and beyond.

BDCL Attractive With 21.5% Yield And Deep Component Discounts To Book Value

Summary BDCL’s quarterly dividend paid in January 2016 is projected to be $0.8216, an increase from October 2015 . On an annualized quarterly compounded basis the yield is 21.5%. While there are problems and high fees associated with some of the business development companies, the discounts to book value and high yields make BDCL attractive. The ETRACS 2xLeveraged Long Wells Fargo Business Development Company ETN (NYSEARCA: BDCL ) will soon be declaring its dividend for the quarter ending December 31, 2015. The dividend will be paid in January 2016. BDCL is an exchanged-traded note that employs 2X leverage to generate exceptionally high yields. Most of the 44 Business Development Companies that comprise the index portfolio upon which BDCL is based have announced dividends with ex-dates in the fourth quarter of 2015. American Capital Ltd. (NASDAQ: ACAS ) and Harris & Harris Group Inc. (NASDAQ: TINY ) do not pay dividends. Capital Southwest Corp. (NASDAQ: CSWC ) pays semiannually and did have an ex-date in the second quarter of 2015 but has declared one since, so I did not include it in the dividend calculation. Main Street Capital Corp (NYSE: MAIN ) pays $0.18 monthly and had a $0.275 special dividend in the fourth quarter of 2015 that is included in the dividend calculation. From 41 of the 44 Business Development Companies who pay dividends with ex-dates in the fourth quarter of 2015, I projected that BDCL’s quarterly dividend paid in January 2016 will be $0.8216. This is an increase of 5.6% from the quarterly $0.7782 dividend paid in September 2015. Most of the increase is due to the increase in the indicative or net asset value of BDCL from $15.6699 on September 30, 2015 to the current $16.5565. The dividend of a leveraged ETN is impacted by the rebalancing of the portfolio each month to bring the amount of leverage back to 2X. If the value of the portfolio declines, portfolio assets must be reduced to maintain the leverage level. This reduces the dividend, is in addition to any reductions from dividend cuts by any of the components in the portfolio. Conversely, if the prices of the component securities increases, the dividend paid by the ETN will increase even if the components of the ETN do not change their dividends. That was the case in the fourth quarter of 2015. The relationship between the net asset value of MORL and the dividend is explained more fully in: MORL’s Net Asset Value Rises – Implications For The Dividends. The table below shows the weight of each of the components of the index upon which BDCL is based. The prices are as of December 23, 2015. The weights are the latest on the BDCL website. The table also shows the dividend rate, the ex-dates, and the contribution by component of the components that pay dividends. In the frequency column “q” denotes quarterly, those that pay monthly have an “m”, and the semi-annual payers are denoted by “s”. Interestingly, the second-largest component of the index upon which BDCL is based, American Capital Ltd., with a weight of 11.51%, is one the 2 components that do not currently pay any dividends. The other component that does not currently pay dividends is TINY has a weight of 0.27%. Thus, 11.78% by weight of the components of BDCL do not pay any dividends now. If CSWC, with a weight of 2.3%, which has not declared a semi-annual dividend after last doing so on 04/24/2015, is included as a non-payer, then 14.08% by weight of the components of BDCL do not pay any dividends now Some readers have asked to see the details of my dividend calculations. I have changed my procedure, and now use the contribution by component method. It should give the exact same result as my previous method that could be called the total imputed dividends divided by the number of shares outstanding method. An example of that methodology using actual numbers can be seen in the article ” MORL Yielding 24.7% Based On Projected June Dividend “. In the total imputed dividends divided by the number of shares outstanding methodology, the number of shares outstanding appears both as a numerator and a denominator. Thus, the same result can be obtained by using the contribution by component method. This method involves multiplying the net asset value of BDCL by weight of each component with an ex-date during the month prior to the month in question, and then multiplying that product by 2 to account for the 2X leverage. That product is then divided by the share price of the component. This is an imputed value for how many shares of the component each share of BDCL represents. Multiplying the shares of the component per BDCL share times the dividend declared by the component gives the contribution by component for each component. Adding all of the contributions of all of the components with an ex-date in the month prior to the month for which the dividend is being computed and adjusting for expenses, gives a projection for the dividend. The index upon which BDCL is based is a float-adjusted, capitalization-weighted index that includes the Business Development Companies listed on the major exchanges. The fact that 14.08% of the companies that comprise BDCL are not currently paying dividends can be looked at with either a “glass is half full” or “glass half empty” perspective. On the bright side, there could be considerable room for an increase in the dividends paid by BDCL if those components not presently paying dividends were to resume them. On the other hand, the fact that 14.08% of the companies that comprise BDCL are not currently paying dividends could be seen as a warning that other components in the portfolio might also suspend dividends at some point in the future. The premise for using 2x leveraged ETNs such BDCL to generate high income is that the extra income resulting from the spread between the dividends paid by the components of index upon which the ETN is based and the interest effectively paid by the ETN on the leveraged portion, should offset any declines in price by the business development companies in the index upon which BEDCL is based. With BDCL the weighted average of the dividends paid by the business development companies that comprise the portfolio is about 10% on a non-compounded basis. With 2x leverage the dividend yield on BDCL, before compounding is the 10% paid by the portfolio plus the amount generated by the leverage spread which is currently 10% less the financing expense based on three-month LIBOR, now 0.6%. Thus, before compounding, the dividend yield will be approximately 10% + 19.6% = 19.6%. While the dividend yield on BDCL has been consistently above 20%, the prices of the business development companies that comprise the index upon which BDCL is based have declined so much that for some holding periods the total return on BDCL has actually been negative. This has exacerbated with the recent general aversion to most high-yielding securities whether they be junk bonds, mREITS or high-dividend closed-end funds. With BDCL, concerns over high fees and problems with specific business development companies in the index and that sector in general have caused BDCL to underperform the equity markets in recent months. This has led many of them to trade at large discounts to book value. Computing the book value for business development companies can be problematic since many of their assets are not publicly traded. However, the higher yielding business development companies that compose the index upon which BDCL is based are generally thought be at historically large discounts to book value. This, could allow the slide in the market prices of the business development companies to reverse at some point. The relatively high yield and high beta or systematic risk is consistent with the Capital Asset Pricing Model. One wrinkle is that for investors seeking higher yields, BDCL may actually be a relatively efficient diversifier, if those investors are now heavily invested in higher-yielding instruments that are very interest rate-sensitive. Previously, I pointed out in the article ” 17.8%-Yielding CEFL – Diversification On Top Of Diversification, Or Fees On Top Of Fees? ” that those investors who have significant portions of their portfolios in mREITs, and in particular, a leveraged basket of mREITs such as the UBS ETRACS Monthly Pay 2xLeveraged Mortgage REIT ETN (NYSEARCA: MORL ), could benefit from diversifying into an instrument that was highly correlated to SPY. The UBS ETRACS Monthly Pay 2xLeveraged Closed-End Fund ETN (NYSEARCA: CEFL ) is highly correlated to SPY, while only 5% of the variation in daily returns for MORL can be explained by the daily variation in the S&P index. Since CEFL yields almost as much as MORL, this suggests that a portfolio consisting of both MORL and CEFL would have almost as much yield as a portfolio with only MORL, but considerably less risk. Adding BDCL to such as portfolio could result in a more efficient risk/return profile. There is an unlevered fund that uses the same index as BDCL — the UBS ETRACS Wells Fargo Business Development Company ETN (NYSEARCA: BDCS ). BDCS could also be a good investment for those who want higher yields and want to use their own leverage to do so. Buying BDCS on a 50% margin would return a higher, or at least comparable, yield to buying BDCL for those who could borrow at LIBOR or some similar level. Many retail investors cannot borrow at interest rates low enough to make buying BDCS on margin a better proposition than buying BDCL. However, larger investors with access to low margin rates might do better by buying BDCS on margin. Even some small investors could do better buying BDCS rather than BDCL, in some cases. For example, an investor might have $10,000 in a brokerage account in a money market fund and want to get at least some return by investing a small part of the $10,000 in BDCL or BDCS. Most brokerage firms pay just 0.01% on money market funds. The annual return on $10,000, at 0.01%, is $1 per year. If this hypothetical investor were thinking of either investing $1,000 of his $10,000 in BDCL and keeping $9,000 in the money market fund, or investing $2,000 of his $10,000 in BDCS and keeping $8,000 in the money market fund, either choice would entail the same amount of risk and potential capital gain. This is because BDCL, being 2X leveraged, would be expected to move either way twice as much as a basket of Business Development Companies, while BDCS would move in line with a basket of Business Development Companies. For this hypothetical investor, his effective borrowing cost is the rate on the money market fund. Thus, his income from the $2,000 of his $10,000 in BDCS and $8,000 in the money market fund should exceed that of $1,000 of his $10,000 invested in BDCL and $9,000 in the money market fund, since his effective borrowing rate on the extra $1,000 invested in BDCS is less than what the imputed borrowing cost that BDCL uses. As I indicated in the article ” BDCL: The Third Leg Of The High-Yielding Leveraged ETN Stool, ” the 44 Business Development Companies that comprise the index upon which BDCL is based are a varied lot. Medallion Financial finances taxi cab companies. ACAS manages $20 billion worth of assets, including American Capital Agency Corp. (NASDAQ: AGNC ) and American Capital Mortgage Investment (NASDAQ: MTGE ), which are mREITs that are included in MORL. Each of the 44 Business Development Companies that comprise the index upon which BDCL is based have their own specific risk factors. The power of diversification can make a portfolio now comprised mainly of high-yielding interest rate-sensitive instruments more efficient when BDCL is added to that portfolio. As I explained in the article ” 30% Yielding MORL, MORT And The mREITs: A Real World Application And Test Of Modern Portfolio Theory ,” a security or a portfolio of securities is more efficient than another asset if it has a higher expected return than the other asset but no more risk, or has the same expected return but less risk. Portfolios of assets will generally be more efficient than individual assets. Compare investing all of your money in one security that had an expected return of 10% with some level of risk to a portfolio comprised of 20 securities each with an expected return of 10% with the same level of risk as the single security. The portfolio would provide the exact same expected return of 10%, but with less risk than the individual security. Thus, the portfolio is more efficient than any of the individual assets in the portfolio. My projection of $0.8216 for the BDCL January 2016 dividend would be an annual rate of $3.29 This would be a 19.9% simple yield, with BDCL priced at $16.5 and an annualized quarterly compounded yield of 21.5%. If someone thought that over the next five years market and credit conditions would remain relatively stable, and thus, BDCL would continue to yield 21.5% on a compounded basis, the return on a strategy of reinvesting all dividends would be enormous. An investment of $100,000 would be worth $264,290 in five years. More interestingly, for those investing for future income, the income from the initial $100,000 would increase from the $20,800 first-year annual rate to $56,822 annually. BDCL prices and dividends as of December 23, 2015 name ticker weight(%) price ex-date dividend freq contribution American Capital Ltd ACAS 11.51 14.19 Ares Capital Corp ARCC 9.97 14.63 12/11/2015 0.38 q 0.0857 Prospect Capital Corp PSEC 9.2 7.22 1/27/2016 0.08333 m 0.1055 Fs Investment Corp FSIC 8.61 9.21 12/18/2015 0.22275 q 0.0690 Main Street Capital Corp MAIN 5.5 30.2 2/18/2016 0.18 m 0.0491 Apollo Investment Corp AINV 4.86 5.41 12/17/2015 0.2 q 0.0595 Fifth Street Finance Corp FSC 3.58 6.29 2/10/2016 0.06 m 0.0339 Golub Capital BDC Inc GBDC 3.29 16.88 12/9/2015 0.32 q 0.0207 TPG Specialty Lending Inc TSLX 3.25 16.86 12/29/2015 0.39 q 0.0249 Hercules Technology Growth Capital Inc HTGC 3.24 12.38 11/12/2015 0.31 q 0.0269 BlackRock Kelso Capital Corp BKCC 2.67 9.53 12/22/2015 0.21 q 0.0195 TCP Capital Corp TCPC 2.66 14.34 12/15/2015 0.36 q 0.0221 Solar Capital Ltd SLRC 2.64 16.82 12/15/2015 0.4 q 0.0208 New Mountain Finance Corp NMFC 2.57 12.9 12/14/2015 0.34 q 0.0224 Goldman Sachs Bdc Closed End Fund GSBD 2.42 19.85 12/29/2015 0.45 q 0.0182 Triangle Capital Corp TCAP 2.35 19.52 12/7/2015 0.59 q 0.0235 Capital Southwest Corp CSWC 2.3 14.29 5/12/2015 s 0.0000 PennantPark Investment Corp PNNT 1.81 6.45 12/22/2015 0.28 q 0.0260 Medley Capital Corp MCC 1.73 7.84 11/23/2015 0.3 q 0.0219 THL Credit Inc TCRD 1.37 11.2 12/11/2015 0.34 q 0.0138 TICC Capital Corp TICC 1.36 6.1 12/14/2015 0.29 q 0.0214 PennantPark Floating Rate Capital Ltd PFLT 1.15 11.44 12/22/2015 0.095 m 0.0095 Fidus Investment Corp FDUS 0.89 14.38 12/2/2015 0.43 q 0.0088 Gladstone Investment Corp GAIN 0.89 7.9 12/16/2015 0.0625 m 0.0070 Fifth Street Senior Floating Rate Corp FSFR 0.87 8.52 2/3/2016 0.075 m 0.0076 Triplepoint Venture Growth BDC Corp TPVG 0.8 12.12 11/25/2015 0.36 q 0.0079 Garrison Capital Inc. GARS 0.78 12.66 12/9/2015 0.35 q 0.0071 Capitala Finance Corp CPTA 0.69 12.21 12/22/2015 0.2067 m 0.0116 Monroe Capital Corp MRCC 0.61 12.94 12/11/2015 0.35 q 0.0055 Newtek Business Services Corp NEWT 0.61 13.52 11/16/2015 3.19 q 0.0477 MVC Capital Inc MVC 0.58 7.58 12/29/2015 0.305 q 0.0077 Gladstone Capital Corp GLAD 0.55 7.3 12/16/2015 0.07 m 0.0052 KCAP Financial Inc KCAP 0.52 4.27 10/9/2015 0.21 q 0.0085 Solar Senior Capital Ltd SUNS 0.51 15.01 12/15/2015 0.1175 m 0.0040 Medallion Financial Corp TAXI 0.49 7.1 11/10/2015 0.25 q 0.0057 Horizon Technology Finance Corp HRZN 0.48 11.72 12/16/2015 0.115 m 0.0047 Stellus Capital Investment Corp SCM 0.47 10.14 12/29/2015 0.1133 m 0.0052 Alcentra Capital Corp ABDC 0.41 12.17 12/29/2015 0.34 q 0.0038 American Capital Senior Floating Closed Fund ACSF 0.4 9.96 1/20/2016 0.097 m 0.0039 CM Finance Inc CMFN 0.3 10.55 12/16/2015 0.3469 q 0.0033 WhiteHorse Finance Inc WHF 0.29 11.48 12/17/2015 0.355 q 0.0030 Oha Investment Corp OHAI 0.28 3.99 12/29/2015 0.12 q 0.0028 OFS Capital Corp OFS 0.28 10.87 12/15/2015 0.34 q 0.0029 Harris & Harris Group Inc TINY 0.27 2.21 0 0.0000