Tag Archives: apple

ETF Issues: What You Don’t Know Might Hurt You

ETFs can be great options for investors. But you have to know what you are buying. iShares, for example, isn’t making that easy, though it’s doing the best it can. Exchange traded funds, or ETFs, are an incredible work of human ingenuity. They are pooled investment vehicles that trade close to net asset value while being traded all day long. And while there are good reasons to like these hot products, there are also reasons to dislike them. And a single data point provided by iShares shows one of those reasons. I don’t hate ETFs To start, I don’t hate ETFs. I just don’t like them as much as most investors seem to. And certainly not as much as Wall Street does, based on how many ETFs have been brought to market in recent years. Yes, they are cheap to own and provide quick and easy diversification. But it’s so easy to buy an ETF that people aren’t looking closely enough at what they are buying. That may not matter much if you pick up the SPDR S&P 500 Trust ETF (NYSEARCA: SPY ), a clone of the S&P 500 Index. But with more and more esoteric ETF product being created by rabid Wall Street salesmen, taking the time to get to know what you own is starting to matter more and more. For example, I recently wrote about the fine print in the prospectus of the Global X Yieldco Index ETF (NASDAQ: YLCO ). Essentially, this ETF is focused on buying 20 stocks in a new and niche sector that doesn’t really have 20 stocks to buy. YLCO is all about the story, not so much about the substance, in my eyes. Maybe YLCO will be a great ETF at some point, but right now it’s a risky proposition that all but the most aggressive investors should avoid. So, yes ETFs can be good. But Wall Street has been perverting this goodness in an attempt to make a buck. iShares isn’t evil But don’t think it’s only exotic fare about which you need to be concerned. Even more “normal” stuff can lead you astray. For example, the iShares NASDAQ Biotechnology ETF (NASDAQ: IBB ) has some problems of its own. Now iShares is the ETF arm of giant asset manager BlackRock (NYSE: BLK ). And, for the most part, BlackRock is a stand up company. But that doesn’t mean every product it sells is a good investment option. For example, a quick look at IBB’s overview page shows a P/E ratio of 25. That might not be too surprising given that biotech companies are high growth. You wouldn’t expect a P/E of 10 for this group. In fact, you might even say it’s on the low side for the sector, which is known for housing money losing companies looking for a big score via the creation of new drugs. Which is why you should click the little information icon next to that P/E stat. That’s where you’ll learn that the P/E ratio doesn’t include companies that don’t have earnings. So, essentially, the P/E really tells you less about the ETF’s portfolio than you might at first believe. Interestingly, the same issue pops up throughout iShare’s data on P/E. For example, the iShares U.S. Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF (NYSEARCA: IEO ) has a P/E that’s listed at a little over 8. With 70% of its assets in the oil and gas exploration sector, where companies are bleeding red ink, you have to step back and wonder what’s going on. A low P/E makes sense for an out of favor sector, but does that average really tell you the whole story? The thing is the warning about P/E is a standard disclosure on the iShares site and holds true for everything from a niche biotech fund to the company’s S&P 500 Index clone. And iShares really isn’t doing anything malicious. It’s a database issue. You can’t calculate a meaningful P/E if a company doesn’t have any E to work with. So in order to get the job done, in this case calculating an average P/E, you toss the garbage numbers. And, thus, you create a P/E by using only those companies with earnings. Which, unfortunately, biases the number you have just created so that it may offer a misleading picture of the portfolio. So I’m not hating on iShares, there’s not much else it could do to provide site-wide data. And at least it goes the extra step of disclosing this little problem. But it should make you step back and take pause. If you own that biotech fund or the oil and gas fund, the stats you are using to validate your purchase may, in fact, not be reliable. This issue can be found at open-end mutual funds, too, so don’t think ETFs are the only problem child. The best example comes from Morningstar. This research and data house is very open about the way it calculates most of its data, you just have to look. And when it comes to average P/E, they have a workbook available that explains, “If a stock has a negative value for the financial variable (EPS, CPS), the stock will be excluded from the calculation.” EPS is earnings per share and CPS is cash flow per share. So any site that uses Morningstar data will be impacted by this issue… like Fidelity (read the fine print at the bottom of the data page). The question is to what degree is there a problem. In some cases it’s a minor issue. In the case of IBB, roughly half of the ETF’s holding don’t make any money and are excluded from the P/E calculation, according to The Wall Street Journal . That makes the P/E figure provided by iShares pretty much useless in my eyes. And it points out yet another problem that ETF investors may not realize when they buy what is currently a hot Wall Street product. Know what you own For many investors ETFs are seen as a short cut. A punt option that doesn’t require much thinking. In many cases that’s true, but in many others it isn’t. Which is why knowing what you own is so important. Can you accept the average P/E for an S&P 500 Index fund at face value? Yeah, probably. But what about an ETF honed in on an industry that’s filled with money-losing companies, like biotech? I don’t think that passes the sniff test. You’d be better off doing a little more digging into the portfolio to get a good understanding of what’s in there. Again, I don’t hate ETFs. But they are so popular and have been pushed so hard by Wall Street that I fear investors don’t have any clue what they own. Too many people have been lulled into complacency by slick marketing and an avalanche of new products. I don’t think that’s a story that ends well. If you own an ETF, I recommend taking a deeper dive just to make sure you really own what you think you own.

Asset Class Scoreboard Entering The Final Quarter

We’re entering the final quarter of 2015, and if we take the sports analogy a little further – it’s time for the star of your portfolio to show up if there’s any hope of winning the game. Because no matter the make up of your team in 2015, you’re likely losing through three quarters, with every asset class besides bonds and cash in the red and in need of a 4th quarter comeback. As for alternatives – managed futures are just barely in the red, but red nonetheless, while hedge funds are down for the year, but better than stocks themselves. (Disclaimer: Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results) Notes: No asset class has been up double digits at any point on the year. Commodities are down by more than -20% for the year. World stocks are down about -17% from their 2015 highs (ouch). World stocks have had five consecutive months of negative returns (Hedge Funds 4). Bonds are at the top of the scoreboard only up 1.01%. For as many articles there have been about the end of the bull market, U.S. stocks are only down -31% on the year. We’re seeing less articles about hedge funds underperforming stocks (because they’re beating them!). Finally, a look at how each asset class performed YTD of every month in 2015 thus far. (click to enlarge) (Disclaimer: past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.) Source: All ETF performance data from Morningstar.com Sources: Managed Futures = Newedge CTA Index, Cash = 13 week T-Bill rate, Bonds = Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF (NYSEARCA: BND ), Hedge Funds = IQ Hedge Multi-Strategy (NYSEARCA: QAI ) Commodities = iShares GSCI ETF (NYSEARCA: GSG ); Real Estate = iShares DJ Real Estate ETF (NYSEARCA: IYR ); World Stocks = iShares MSCI ACWI ex US Index Fund ETF (NASDAQ: ACWX ); US Stocks = SPDR S&P 500 ETF (NYSEARCA: SPY ) Share this article with a colleague

The Benchmarks Lie, Here’s How

Many investors, new and experienced alike, are intent upon “beating the Dow” or “beating the S&P.”. A laudable goal except that… …those indices are always moving targets! The benchmarks lie. Many investors, new and experienced alike, are intent upon “beating the Dow” or “beating the S&P” rather than seeing their capital increase over time. It isn’t that difficult to beat the benchmarks. We’ve done it over 15 years from 1999-2014 and this year the markets, so far, are down 6% to our 1% so we ​hope to keep that trend alive. On the other hand, for investors ​who place their faith in buying only companies that are in the benchmarks often find ​it is difficult to beat the indexes. That’s because “the benchmarks lie.” Every time a company disappoints the keeper of these benchmarks, S&P Dow Jones Indices (a McGraw Hill Financial subsidiary) they boot it out of the index and replace it with something they consider more “representative.” I don’t believe it is a coincidence, however, that “representative” usually equates to rising relative momentum, making the index performance look considerably more attractive — although that index may have a completely different composition than the one you bought before all their changes. As for the companies booted out, they are still in business but, if you bought a mirrored portfolio of those 30 stocks, you own the same 30, but the index and its ETF​ clones own a very different index — and not because the​ component companies went out of business or failed to meet regulatory requirements. Assuming S&P Dow Jones Indices are correct in their momentum assessment, the results are regularly skewed upward. So if you obsess over, “why didn’t the 30 Dow stocks in my portfolio keep up with the Dow Jones Index?” well, in Nov 1999, did you toss Chevron (NYSE: CVX ), Goodyear (NASDAQ: GT ), Sears (NASDAQ: SHLD ), and Union Carbide out of your portfolio and replace them with Home Depot (NYSE: HD ), Intel (NASDAQ: INTC ), Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT ), and SBC Communications (which a few years later acquired/became AT&T?) S&P Dow Jones Indices​ did.​ In April 2004, did you sell AT&T (NYSE: T ) (after just 5 years in the index,) Eastman Kodak (out of bankruptcy ​now ​and again trading on the NYSE) and International Paper (NYSE: IP ) and instead buy AIG , Pfizer (NYSE: PFE ), and Verizon (NYSE: VZ )? Or in Sep 2008 sell Altria Group (NYSE: MO ) and Honeywell (NYSE: HON ) in order to buy Bank of America (NYSE: BAC ) and Chevron (which I suppose the indices gurus decided was worthy once again?) In 2009, when Citigroup (NYSE: C ) and General Motors (NYSE: GM ) stocks were plunging, did you switch to Cisco (NASDAQ: CSCO ) and Travelers (NYSE: TRV )? Or did you exchange AT&T for Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL ) this year? There are many other examples but you get the idea. “Representative” seems to mean “on its way up” — though it doesn’t always work out that way. A recent anomaly in the last couple years indicates some boot-ees do better than the new inductees, though it remains to be seen if this will continue. That brings us to an interesting example ​just today ​​of how trying to read too much into a benchmark can confuse or backfire. The S&P closed down 0.35% and the Nasdaq closed down 0.7% — but the Dow is up .08%. How come? Well, the Dow has only 30 components so if one of them soars or plunges on one day it can affect the index out of proportion to its long-term trend. Today it was DuPont that sent the Dow ahead (which will no doubt lead some feckless commentator to claim that, since the Dow means Blue Chips, that the “leadership of the Dow today proves” that the markets will rise.) But the reason ​the Dow rose as ​DuPont rose 10% today? The CEO said she would retire, giving rise to speculation the company may be broken up, hardly an event likely to be repeated every day. The bottom line is that I continue to believe that intelligent stock (and preferred, bond, ETF, CEF and mutual fund) selection remains key to market success, that indexes can be beaten by this approach, and that markets go up and down, meaning there are times to enter trailing stops, adjust your portfolio percentages to include more cash, bonds or hedges. In my next article, I will give some ​current ​examples. Disclaimer: As Registered Investment Advisors, we believe it is essential to advise that we do not know your personal financial situation, so the information contained in this communiqué represents the opinions of the staff of Stanford Wealth Management, and should not be construed as “personalized” investment advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results, rather an obvious statement but clearly too often unheeded judging by the number of investors who buy the current #1 mutual fund one year only to watch it plummet the following year. We encourage you to do your own due diligence on issues we discuss to see if they might be of value in your own investing. We take our responsibility to offer intelligent commentary seriously, but it should not be assumed that investing in any securities we are investing in will always be profitable. We do our best to get it right, and we “eat our own cooking,” but we could be wrong, hence our full disclosure as to whether we own or are buying the investments we write about. Best regards, Joseph L. Shaefer