Tag Archives: apple

PEY: Great Companies, Great Sector Allocations And Solid Yields

Summary PEY offers a dividend yield of 3.39%. The individual company allocations include some relatively heavy concentrations. The sector allocation looks nice, but the volatility on the ETF has been surprising. I like the underlying allocations, but rather than using an ETF that trades the companies I’d prefer a simple “buy and hold” strategy. The PowerShares High Yield Equity Dividend Achievers Portfolio ETF (NYSEARCA: PEY ) has an excellent yield at 3.39% and the sector allocations look great. A heavy allocation to utilities and consumer staples seems like a solid way to build a defensive portfolio, however the volatility of the fund has been surprising. Expenses The expense ratio is a .54%. This is quite a bit too high for my tastes. Holdings I put grabbed the following chart to demonstrate the weight of the top 10 holdings: The heaviest weighting by a slight margin was given to the Vector Group (NYSE: VGR ). The stock has an incredibly high 6.7% dividend yield and is in the cigarette business. While I’m not thrilled with the actions of tobacco companies, the dividend is very strong, and their product benefits from being highly addictive. For the investor addicted to reliable income, this is an industry that simply makes great financial sense. I thought it was interesting that the Vector Group received such a heavy weighting when I didn’t see Altria Group (NYSE: MO ) near the top. Digging deeper into the holdings I found that Altria Group was included and currently represents almost 2% of the portfolio. You may also notice a few oil companies in the portfolio. ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP ) and Chevron (NYSE: CVX ) both get respectable weights and offer investors exposure to the oil industry which seems to be entirely out of favor. When it comes to oil allocations, I’m fine with having them in the ETF or doing them individually. In the case of ETFs with higher expense ratios, I would lean towards just buying the oil companies individually since I see the sector as a simple “buy and hold” area. Market Cap and Style The style demonstrates a fairly heavy focus on value companies with a willingness to allow blended allocations. It should be noted that they do have a fairly notable allocation to both the small-cap and mid-cap areas which I would expect to increase volatility. Sectors This was the chart that I thought provided the best selling point for PEY. They offer investors a significant allocation to utilities and consumer staples. These heavy allocations should result in a portfolio that is capable of being significantly more defensive and able to withstand downturns in the economy. I wanted to check and see if things had played out that way, so I ran a quick regression on PEY with the S&P 500 going back to December of 2004. It turns out that PEY got hammered pretty hard. The worst drawdown during the recession was saw the S&P 500 fall by about 55%, but PEY managed to lose over 72% of the funds value. I don’t believe that the fund is currently as volatile as those numbers would suggest, but I would prefer to see more diversification in the portfolio allocations since running allocations greater than 3% to anything other than a company like Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM ) is simply introducing additional price risk. Conclusion The yield is solid and the sector allocations give the fund a definite appeal for investors looking for that steady source of income. During 2008 and 2009 the fund took some pretty harsh beatings, but I wouldn’t expect them to see that kind of loss again. One of the challenges that I believe the fund faces is having the objective to track the price and yield performance of the Nasdaq US Dividend Achievers® 50 Index. The lack of diversification within the index makes creates a challenge for building any diversification into the fund. The individual holdings include several great dividend growth champions, but I don’t see a benefit in creating higher levels of concentration or trading the positions frequently. The underlying companies are the kind where an investor might serve their family well by simply taking physical delivery of the shares and stuffing them in a safe with the door closed for the next 50 years. There are some areas where more frequent trading makes sense, but when it comes to these dividend champions, I don’t see a need to have any frequent changes. If the fund dropped the expense ratio to .05% and indicated that there would be almost 0 trades over the next few decades, I’d be very bullish on the fund because the underlying companies offer investors a solid growing stream of income. In essence, I like the allocations more than the strategy that created them.

A Really Long-Term Test Of Currency Carry Strategy

Academic research using a long time horizon (more than 100 years of data) confirmed the existence of the currency carry trade effect but found significantly lower risk-adjusted profitability than comparable empirical studies. The analysis also reveals rare occurrences of significant losses which can be worse than those in year 2008. A carry trade strategy can still provide diversification benefits to long-only equity investors as equities and currency carry trades sometimes appear to be exposed to different sources of risk. We wrote a short introduction to currency strategies in our previous article where we examined whether we can view currencies as a distinct asset class . In this article, we will continue in our investigation and elaborate more about the most popular systematic currency trading strategy – Currency Carry Trade (you can see the detailed description of this strategy and a list of related academic research papers on Quantpedia – The Encyclopedia of Quantitative Trading Strategies ). There are already several academic research papers that have examined the return-generating ability of the carry trade strategy and have found that it has significant positive excess returns or Sharpe ratio that can be twice as high as that of the equity markets. However, most of these studies cover only the period after the collapse of the Bretton-Woods system in 1973. Luckily, one important research paper by Doskow and Swinkels (2014) 1 is different from the others. Their main contribution to previous literature lies in broadening the sample period so that it covers multiple currency regimes. This also enables us to look at the risks of carry trading in the pre-Bretton-Woods period. We will attempt to interpret the findings on the risk and return characteristics of both nominal and real carry trade over a period of more than a hundred years and eventually compare these strategies to the behavior of the equity market. As a basis for their empirical work, the authors used the database from Dimson, Marsh and Staunton (2013). It offers exchange rates and treasury bill returns of 20 countries for most of the 1900-2012 period. Even though the analysis had to rely on returns on treasury bills instead of short-term deposit rates, it did not have a significant impact on the obtained results. Also, the fact that the analysis could not be made using data with higher than annual frequency was proved to be of very little importance by the authors. The methodology Doskow and Swinkels used to examine the carry trade returns was as follows: they ranked currencies based on their treasury bill returns (which serve as a proxy for ex-ante yields) every year and then invested in four currencies with the highest interest rates while shorting four with the lowest interest rates. This way they obtained the annual carry trade returns for the period of 1901-2012. In order to obtain the results for real carry trades, it was necessary to adjust the nominal returns on treasury bills by deducting the country-specific inflation and ranking the countries based on these inflation-adjusted (real) returns. What are the main findings of Doskow and Swinkels? And has there been a worse year in history for the currency carry strategy than year 2008? The historical data on the returns from nominal carry trade s revealed several interesting things: Two decades from the sample period were quite exceptional (1901-1909 and the 1950s). The Sharpe ratio in the first decade reached an outstanding value of 3.45 compared to the second best of 1.02 from the 1950s. This result was mainly attributed to the stability of returns over the decade. The steady performance lasted until the beginning of World War I. The loss of 20.2 percent from 1918 is comparable to that of the recent global financial crisis (-21.3 percent in 2008). A similar result of -21.2 percent in 1931 was achieved during the Great Recession, associated with the collapse of gold exchange standard. The most harsh period was the 1940s decade, the period of WWII. It is the only decade from the sample period that recorded a negative average return (-5.3 percent, compared to the second lowest of 1.7 percent in the previous 1930s decade) and, therefore, also a negative Sharpe ratio. The only double-digit negative returns in the post-Bretton-Woods era (besides 2008) were recorded in the middle of the 1980s (1985 and 1986), both indicating losses close to 15 percent. The cumulative performance of world equities against the carry trade strategies over the 1901-2012 (excluding 1940s) is shown in Figure 1. We can see the equity markets struggled in the pre-WWII period as opposed to carry trade strategies; after the WWII, both currency carry trade and equities showed an upward trend. (click to enlarge) The authors underline several implications: Firstly , empirical evidence suggests that the currency carry trade existed in the past even before the year 1973. But the average profitability relative to the risk is markedly lower than is usually presented in studies that use more recent data – Sharpe ratio of 0.26 over the entire period (or 0.38, excluding the 1940s) compared to the usual results often exceeding 0.6. Secondly, the large losses in the first half of the sample period could be attributed to materialized crash risk, a rare event risk, or the so-called “peso problem”, as supported by the recent literature. Analysis shows that hidden risk in currency carry trades is greater than most investors think and losses greater than the loss in the year 2008 were recorded in the past. Finally, the average Sharpe ratio of equities was close to those of carry strategies (0.31 vs. 0.38 and 0.24). However, the important result is surprisingly low correlation between nominal carry trades and equities of only 0.2, which suggests possible diversification benefits for long-only equity investors. The results obtained for the real carry trade are considerably more volatile compared to the nominal. It is again mainly due to the extreme values measured in 1940s; e.g. a positive return of 282.4(!) percent in 1948 (appreciation of long German mark) and an immediate loss of 71.7 percent in the next year. Not accounting for the 1940s provides much more similar results to those for the nominal carry trade, even though the risk-adjusted performance is still noticeably lower (average Sharpe of 0.24 compared to 0.38). Also, the real and nominal carry trade returns were weakly correlated over the entire period (0.39) due to high inflation experienced by a number of countries. However, in the period of generally low and stable inflation (after 1985), the correlation increased to 0.64. What are the conclusions for ordinary investors: Is the currency carry effect real? Apparently, yes. The really long test performed by Doskow and Swinkels (using data which hadn’t been used before) showed that currency carry is a real effect. We can reasonably expect it will probably exist also in the future. Is it a free lunch? Not at all. Analysis shows that currency carry trades had some really bad periods in the past (worse than 2008). It will have bad periods in the future too. Should we add it into a portfolio? It may be a good idea. Currency carry has a comparable long-term Sharpe ratio to equities and very low correlation. It is an alternative asset class and, therefore, not a lot of people are comfortable with a high allocation to it. But it definitely has a place in a modern diversified investment portfolio. How to invest in currency carry trade strategies? Our previous article shows that it is not a wise idea to use an active currency fund. ETFs like the PowerShares DB G10 Currency Harvest ETF (NYSEARCA: DBV ) or the iPath Optimized Currency Carry ETN (NYSEARCA: ICI ). REFERENCES 1. DOSKOW, N. – SWINKELS, L. 2014. Empirical evidence on the currency carry trade, 1900-2012 . Journal of International Money and Finance