Tag Archives: author

Financial Markets Have Not Been Handing Out Participation Trophies

In the financial markets, different asset types are always competing for our investing dollars. Moreover, when a particular asset class like U.S. stocks has only a handful of companies holding up a benchmark like the S&P 500, the probability for a revolt by the collective will of all corporate shares rises immensely. This is precisely what transpired in the August-September sell-off. The internal weakness across components of popular benchmarks like the Russell 1000, S&P 500 and NASDAQ 100 should not be ignored. I watch more football than I should. It may have something to do with the ability to see any game or any highlight on DirecTV in real time. Or perhaps there are few parenting responsibilities with my 19-year old daughter attending college 60 miles south of our Orange County home. Or maybe it’s a semi-conscious desire to avoid working out at the nearby LA Fitness. Regardless, I could barely keep my eyes open during Monday night’s contest between the Colts and the Panthers. Tedious? I thought it was a “Snooze Fest.” I found myself cheering more for a Kia car commercial than the yawn producing match-up on the field. In case you missed the advertisement, the camera focuses in on a father who is beaming with pride. His son’s team has just finished an entire season without losing a single game. The dad asks his child to see the trophy and it reads, “Participant.” Disdainfully, he proceeds to remove the flimsy tag and write in the word, “Champs.” Yes, I am one of those old school thinkers who believes that participation is its own reward and that it does not need to be acknowledged. You should get an “A” for performance, not for effort. You should get a raise for what you bring to a conference table beyond your backside. “Showing up” is not deserving of the same pay, the same grades or the same accolades as those who are achieving more. My ideas of morality and social sensibility notwithstanding, there are times when things still get out of whack. Imagine a classroom where two standouts receive “As” and thirty-two others receive “Fs.” Where are the Bs, Cs and Ds? Chances are, a teacher is failing his/her students. Similarly, picture a company with three executives earning tens of millions and three thousand employees earning minimum wage. Where are the highly compensated folks, the relatively well-paid skilled producers and the modestly compensated workers? In this scenario, the extent of the income inequality is likely to end in revolt. In the financial markets, different asset types are always competing for our investing dollars. Moreover, when a particular asset class like U.S. stocks has only a handful of companies holding up a benchmark like the S&P 500, the probability for a revolt by the collective will of all corporate shares rises immensely. This is precisely what transpired in the August-September sell-off. Market participation (a.k.a. “market breadth”) broke down well in advance of the sell-off. Of course, the October rally has seen participation in a bullish uptrend improve dramatically. Nearly 72% of S&P 500 stocks now exhibit bullish uptrends. That’s not far from the 75% participation that existed in the first five months of 2015. On the other hand, equal-weighted ETFs continuing to warn that things are less than hunky-dory. Consider the performance of the Guggenheim S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF (NYSEARCA: RSP ) at different periods in the current U.S. stock bull. Year-to-date, RSP is underperforming the S&P 500 SPDR Trust ETF (NYSEARCA: SPY ). This suggests that market-cap leading components (e.g., Facebook (NASDAQ: FB ), Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL ), Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT ), etc.) have been doing the heavy sledding and that, when one weights all of the companies in the S&P 500 evenly, the bull market is less healthy across the entire landscape than many would like to admit. Now gander at the outperformance of RSP over SPY in the three years prior. During the three-year run (2012-2014), strong gains across the participant components of the S&P 500 indicated a broader willingness to take risk than in the present environment. Ironically, the circumstances within the NASDAQ 100 are eerily similar. Take a look at the performance of the First Trust NASDAQ-100 Equal Weight Index ETF (NASDAQ: QQEW ) versus the PowerShares QQQ Trust ETF (NASDAQ: QQQ ) at different periods. Year-to-date, QQEW is underperforming QQQ. Once again, this is evidence of less-than-ideal participation. During the three years prior, however, QQEW kept pace with QQQ. The relative underperformance of equal-weighted ETFs can be observed across numerous sectors as well. Year-to-date since the summertime, the G uggenheim S&P Equal Weight Technology ETF (NYSEARCA: RYT ) is struggling relative to the market-cap weighted Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF (NYSEARCA: XLK ). Less participation (a.k.a. less market breadth) is typically an undesirable omen. Once again, take note of the healthier participation in the previous three years. None of these observations definitively prove that the current rally is doomed in the near-term. On the contrary. As discussed last in last week’s commentary on our current allocation for moderate growth and income clients , we embraced the successful retest of the August lows for SPY and QQQ in late September. We bumped the 50% equity component up to 60%, which is roughly 5% shy of a 65-35 standard. That said, the internal weakness across components of popular benchmarks like the Russell 1000, S&P 500 and NASDAQ 100 should not be ignored. If that weakness intensifies, as it did in in May, June and July of 2015, we would likely raise cash levels as we did in the summertime. What’s more, investors should keep in mind that bond investors are still somewhat skeptical about the sustainability of the stock rally beyond calendar year 2015. The spread between high yield (BBB) and comparable treasuries is still elevated and the spread is still greater than what it was in mid-September. (click to enlarge) For Gary’s latest podcast, click here . Disclosure: Gary Gordon, MS, CFP is the president of Pacific Park Financial, Inc., a Registered Investment Adviser with the SEC. Gary Gordon, Pacific Park Financial, Inc, and/or its clients may hold positions in the ETFs, mutual funds, and/or any investment asset mentioned above. The commentary does not constitute individualized investment advice. The opinions offered herein are not personalized recommendations to buy, sell or hold securities. At times, issuers of exchange-traded products compensate Pacific Park Financial, Inc. or its subsidiaries for advertising at the ETF Expert web site. ETF Expert content is created independently of any advertising relationships.

Portfolio Optimization With Leveraged Bond Funds

Summary Bond funds are great because they generate alpha and usually have negative correlation with stocks. Using the leveraged version of a bond fund can drastically improve portfolio optimization (i.e. produce greater expected returns for a given level of volatility). I use SPY/TLT and SPY/TMF to illustrate. SPY/TLT Portfolio Optimization Consider a two-fund portfolio optimizaton problem based on the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (NYSEARCA: SPY ) and the iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: TLT ). Often the goal is to maximize the ratio of expected returns to volatility (Sharpe ratio). I don’t like that approach, because when you maximize Sharpe ratio, you tend to get a portfolio with great risk-adjusted returns but relatively small raw returns. Instead, let’s say the goal is to choose an asset allocation that maximizes expected returns for some level of volatility that you can tolerate. A good way to do that is to look at a plot of mean vs. standard deviation of daily returns for various asset allocations. Here is that plot using SPY and TLT data going back to 2002. (click to enlarge) The red curve shows mean and standard deviation of daily portfolio gains for various asset allocations. The points represent 10% asset allocation increments. The top-right point is 100% SPY, 0% TLT; the next point is 90% SPY, 0% TLT; and so on until the bottom-most point on the other end of the curve, which is 0% SPY, 100% TLT. Suppose you want no more than three-fourths the volatility of SPY, or a standard deviation no greater than 0.93%. Looking at the graph, we want to be right around the third data point from the upper-right end of the curve. That data point represents 80% SPY, 20% TLT. This is the optimal allocation for an investor who wants to maximize returns at three-fourths the volatility of SPY. SPY/3x TLT Portfolio Optimization Let’s see how replacing TLT with a perfect 3x daily TLT fund (no expense ratio, no tracking error) affects the portfolio optimization problem. (click to enlarge) The red curve shows the same data as in the first figure, it just looks different because I had to zoom out to accommodate the SPY/3x TLT curve. Here I show asset allocations in 5% increments for the blue curve. The lowest point on the blue curve is 100% SPY, 0% 3x TLT; the next point is 95% SPY, 5% 3x TLT; and so on until the rightmost point, which is 0% SPY, 100% 3x TLT. Interestingly, increasing 3x TLT exposure from 0% reduces volatility and increases mean returns up until about 25% 3x TLT. Over the volatility range 0.884%-1.235%, you can do substantially better in terms of maximizing mean returns for a given level of volatility with SPY/3x TLT compared to SPY/TLT. Going back to the first example, at a volatility of 0.93%, or three-fourths the volatility of SPY, the best mean return you can achieve with SPY/TLT is 0.039%, with 80.1% SPY and 19.9% TLT. The best you can do with SPY/3x TLT is 0.059%, with 65.5% SPY and 34.5% 3x TLT. Daily returns of 0.059% and 0.039% correspond to CAGRs of 16.0% and 10.3%, respectively. For another interesting special case, suppose you can tolerate the volatility of SPY. With SPY/TLT, the optimal portfolio is 100% SPY and 0% TLT, with a mean daily return of 0.040%. With SPY/3x TLT, the optimal portfolio is 48.4% SPY and 51.6% 3x TLT, with a mean daily return of 0.069%. Also noteworthy is the fact that SPY/3x TLT portfolios are capable of achieving volatility greater than SPY, while SPY/TLT portfolios are not. This could be appealing to aggressive investors. A Real 3x Bond Fund: TMF So far, I’ve shown that a perfect 3x daily TLT fund would be extremely useful for portfolio optimization. The next question is whether such a fund exists, and how “perfect” it is in regard to expense ratio and tracking error. There are a few options, but I think the most relevant is the Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3x Shares (NYSEARCA: TMF ). TMF was introduced on April 16, 2009, and has a net expense ratio of 0.95%. The next figure shows that indeed TMF effectively multiplies daily TLT gains by a factor of 3. The correlation between actual TMF gains and 3x TLT gains over TMF’s 6.5-year lifetime is 0.996. (click to enlarge) I realize that TMF does not attempt to track 3x TLT, but rather 3x the NYSE 20 Year Plus Treasury Bond Index (AXTWEN). But practically speaking TMF operates very much like a 3x TLT ETF. Let’s go ahead and re-examine the mean vs. standard deviation plot for SPY/TLT, SPY/3x TLT, and SPY/TMF over TMF’s lifetime. (click to enlarge) This is interesting, and slightly disappointing. As in the previous plot, we see that SPY/3x TLT achieves drastically better mean returns for particular levels of volatility compared to SPY/TLT. The orange curve for SPY/TMF is also higher than SPY/TLT, but not as much so as SPY/3x TLT. It seems that TMF’s reasonable expense ratio and tiny tracking error do detract somewhat from the optimization problem. But we still see that increasing exposure to TMF from 0% to about 20% reduces volatility and increases expected returns, and SPY/TMF does much better than SPY/TLT for those who can tolerate volatility between 0.722% and 1.022%. Leveraged Bond Funds Multiply Alpha and Beta As I’ve argued in other articles (e.g. SPY/TLT and SPXL/TMF Strategies Work Because of Positive Alpha, not Negative Correlation ), the reason bond funds compliment stocks so well is that they generate positive alpha. A bond fund with zero or negative alpha has no place in any portfolio; you would be better off using cash to adjust volatility and expected returns. Anyway, bond funds are special because they generate alpha. Ignoring tracking error and expense ratio, a leveraged version of a bond fund multiples both the alpha and beta of the underlying bond index. We can see this with TLT and TMF. Over TMF’s lifetime, their alphas are 0.061 and 0.173, and their betas are -0.492 and -1.493, respectively. TMF’s alpha is 2.84 times that of TLT’s, and its beta is 3.03 times that of TLT’s. 3x greater alpha does not immediately render 3x TLT the better choice for portfolio optimization. You have to look at the effect on both expected returns and volatility, which are both functions of alpha and beta. Suppose you can achieve the same portfolio volatility with c allocated to SPY and (1-c) to TLT, or with d allocated to SPY and (1-d) to 3x TLT. If you subtract the expected return of the SPY/TLT portfolio from the expected return of the SPY/3x TLT portfolio, you get: (d-c) E[X] + [3(1-d) – (1-c)] E[Y] where X represents the daily return of SPY, and Y the daily return of TLT. Whether this expression is positive or negative depends on d, c, E[X], and E[Y] (which can also be expressed as alpha + beta E[X]). For SPY and TLT, the expression is always positive, which means that SPY/3x TLT provides better expected returns than SPY/TLT for any level of volatility that both can achieve. Conclusions Leveraged bond funds appear to be extremely useful for portfolio optimization. In the case of SPY and TLT, we saw that using a 3x version of TLT, like TMF, allows us to: Improve expected returns for a particular level of volatility. Achieve the same volatility as SPY, but with drastically better expected returns. Take on extra volatility beyond SPY’s in pursuit of greater raw returns. In practice, TMF’s expense ratio and tracking error detract somewhat from the performance of an ideal SPY/3x TLT portfolio. But SPY/TMF still allows for substantial improvements over SPY/TLT in terms of maximizing returns for a given level of volatility.

Healthcare And Biotechnology Closed-End Funds

Summary Tekla offers four closed end funds in the biotechnology/healthcare sector. Two long-established funds are focused on capital growth. Two newer funds add current income to their investment objectives. Healthcare and Biotechnology seem to have caught their stride after a rough third quarter. There are a lot of ways to invest in these sectors. One of the least appreciated is closed-end funds, and the best of these, in my opinion, come from Tekla. Tekla sponsors four funds. Two are well established funds that are regularly found at or near the top of the pack for equity CEFs. Two are new, one a little more than a year old and the other a little more than a quarter. The stalwarts are Tekla Healthcare Investors (NYSE: HQH ) and Tekla Lifesciences Investors (NYSE: HQL ). The new-comers are Tekla Healthcare Opportunities (NYSE: THQ ) and Tekla World Healthcare (NYSE: THW ). Some descriptive details for these funds are in the table. The two older funds operate much the same. They are unleveraged and have managed distribution policies for their quarterly distributions. The younger funds are structured differently from the older funds, but are similar to each other. For one thing, they use leverage to achieve their investment goals. Precisely what the extent of that leverage may eventually be is unclear. THQ is reporting 9.6% leverage at present, and THW is too new to have reported. THQ and THW also have managed distribution policies, but theirs are structured differently from HQH and HQL. They pay distributions monthly. Investment Goals HQH invests in the healthcare industry (including biotechnology, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals). The fund’s objective is to provide long-term capital appreciation through investments in companies in the healthcare industry believed to have significant potential for above-average long-term growth. Selection emphasizes the smaller, emerging companies with a maximum of 40% of the Fund’s assets in restricted securities of both public and private companies. HQL primarily invests in the life sciences (including biotechnology, pharmaceutical, diagnostics, managed healthcare, medical equipment, hospitals, healthcare information technology and services, devices and supplies), agriculture and environmental management industries. The Fund’s objectives and selection criteria are the same as HQH except for a change in wording from healthcare to the life sciences industry. Note that biotechnology heads the lists for each. To a large extent these are primarily biotech funds. One particularly interesting point is that the funds can and do invest in private companies. This can open opportunities not generally available to most investors, and certainly not readily accessible by investing in open-end mutual funds or ETFs. The difference between HQH and HQL is that HQL’s mandate is expanded to include agricultural and environmental biotechnologies. THQ and THW invest primarily in the healthcare industry. The funds’ objectives are to seek current income and long-term capital appreciation through investment companies engaged in the healthcare industry, including equity securities, debt securities and pooled investment vehicles. Notice that HQH and HQL make no mention of current income in their goal statements and THQ and THW do. Notice also, that THQ and THW include debt securities in their investment strategies. THW differs from THQ in being targeted more as an international fund. It expects to invest at least 40% in companies organized or located outside the United States. Both expect to invest in debt securities and pooled investment vehicles in addition to equity. So there are marked differences between HQH and HQL on one hand, and THQ and THW on the other. HQH/HQL are more closely focused on biotech; THQ/THW invest more broadly in the healthcare sector. The first set does provide excellent income, but that is not its purpose, which affects how the fund is managed. Finally the new funds expand their investment programs to include debt securities such as convertible and non-convertible bonds and preferred shares. Distribution Policies All four have managed distribution policies, but the terms of the policies are different. HQH and HQL have as their distribution policy the intention to make quarterly distributions at a rate of 2% of the fund’s net assets. To the extent possible, they will to do so using net realized capital gains. If those gains fall short of the target this could result in return of capital to shareholders. Capital gains in excess of distributions will be returned to shareholders as a special distribution with the December distribution. The default for HQH’s and HQL’s distributions is that they are taken in stock. Investors do have the option to request cash distributions. This policy reflects the funds’ emphases on capital appreciation rather than current income, and is unusual for CEFs. Both HQH and HQL began making quarterly distributions in 2000 (previous to that they were made annually). Both suspended distributions for three quarters in 2009-10 making no payment between June 2009 and June 2010. Otherwise, the funds have met their 2% of NAV payout objective without return of capital for all but two of the 60 quarterly payments they have made. Distributions for Q1 and Q2 of 2009, the quarters prior to the suspension of distributions did include return of capital. THQ and THW have current income as an investment objective. Their managed distribution policies are more similar to that of other managed-distribution CEFs. Although I have not seen it explicitly stated in the materials I’ve viewed, I assume that it means the funds expect to maintain consistent monthly payments independent of fluctuations in NAV and income, which is the most typical pattern of managed distributions. This can mean distributions that include return of capital and periodic occurrences of negative undistributed net investment income. THQ has paid $0.1125/share monthly since inception. THW has paid $0.1167/share for its three distributions. Current Status The two older funds are currently priced at premiums near 5%. The new funds have double-digit discounts as seen in this table. The distribution percentages shown in the table are based on recent payouts. According the funds’ policies the next distribution for HQH and HQL will be 2% of NAV on the record date. Z-Scores give us an indication of where the discount/premium stands in relation to the past. Positive Z-Scores mean the discount has shrunk or the premium has grown over the period. The absolute value represents the number of standard deviations the current value is relative to the average for the period. Large Z-scores (say, over 2 or under -2) can often suggest mean reversion is imminent. These values tell us that for HQH and HQL the premiums stand well above their means for 3, 6 and 12 months. As recently as the end of September, HQH had a -8.85% discount and HQL’s was -6.2%. Both funds have seen volatile pricing relative to NAV recently and have seen their discount/premium fluctuate widely. This is seen in HQH’s chart (from cefconnect.com ). (click to enlarge) During the third quarter meltdown for healthcare and biotechnology there was near-panic selling of the fund causing the discount to fall below -8%. With signs of recovery in October, the premium has been restored. These are the sorts of movements that some CEF investors look for and hope to take advantage of when they do occur. Portfolios HQH and HQL have very similar portfolios. HQL nominally adds exposure to agricultural and environmental biotechnology to HQH’s pure play in healthcare but this not obvious without getting deep into the fund’s holdings. At the top it looks very much like HQH. HQH holds 96% in equity; for HQL it’s 92%. The remainder is primarily in debt instruments. THQ holds 18.5% of its portfolio in debt instruments. THW’s portfolio remains a black box at this time, as there have been no reports as yet by the fund. Top holdings are available for HQH, HQL and THL but not for THW. (click to enlarge) Note how similar HQH and HQL’s lists are. The clear emphasis here is on biotechnology. THQ has positions extending beyond biotechnology to include more traditional healthcare companies such as Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer which is consistent with its more explicit emphasis on income. Other Healthcare CEFs My focus here has been on the Tekla offerings with the intention of clarifying how the new funds differ from the established funds. Before closing, I would be remiss to not mention two other healthcare CEFs; BlackRock Health Sciences (NYSE: BME ) and Gabelli Health & Wellness (NYSE: GRX ). BRE is more similar to HQH and HQL in that it is unleveraged and entirely domestic, but its focus is less on biotechnology than those funds. GRX carries 20.5% effective leverage and has a more diverse portfolio that includes food companies such as Kraft Foods and Kikkomann Corp as well as heathcare holdings. It is 84% domestic and 15% Developed Europe and Japan. BME, like the older Tekla funds shows extensive movement in its premium/discount. It now stands at a 7% premium, up from its 52 week average but well below its 52 week high of 16.2%. GRX, by contrast, tends toward a persistent discount which is now -13.2%, near its 52 week low of -14.8%. BME recently has tended to perform comparably to the Tekla funds; GRX has consistently lagged. Over a longer time frame the Tekla funds have turned in much stronger performances than either BRE or GRX, likely a reflection of their emphasis on biotechnology over traditional healthcare companies. This is illustrated by this chart tracking total return for the past two and five years. (click to enlarge) Summary The two sets of Tekla funds, HQH and HQL on one hand, and THQ and THW on the other, have different objectives and approaches to healthcare and biotechnology investing strategies. HQH and HQL are primarily focused on generating capital appreciation. The younger funds are more in the traditional CEF mold of emphasizing current income as well as capital appreciation. Despite the lack of formal emphasis on income, the distribution policies of HQH and HQL are, in my view, primarily attractive to an investor interested in current income. Their distribution yields are attractive and growing with NAV growth. For a shareholder invested for capital appreciation, the distributions can raise tax issues, so the funds are probably best held in a tax-advantaged account in such cases. In a taxable account, it would seem to make more sense to use ETFs to provide exposure to biotechnology to satisfy a capital growth objective. ETFs can effectively provide that capital appreciation with much lower taxable distributions. The premiums for HQH and HQL argue against entry into these funds at this time. A patient investor would probably choose to wait for some reduction in the premiums, if not outright reversion to discount status. Those premiums are now approaching all-time highs for HQL and are at rarely seen levels for HQH. An income investor seeking exposure to healthcare with a biotech focus may find THQ more appealing than either HQH or HQL at this time. There is, of course, only a scant record for the fund. Tekla has shown itself to be a strong manager of biotech equity portfolios but has little record in expanding that to include debt and credit. The discount of -11.6%, about as deeply discounted as the fund has been in its short life, looks to provide an attractive entry. As for THW, the fund is too young and information too scanty to appeal to me at this time. I suspect it will evolve to be as similar to THQ as HQL is to HQH.