Tag Archives: checkbox

John Deere Q1 Results Drag Down Agribusiness ETFs

Before the opening bell on Friday, the world’s largest agricultural equipment maker, Deere & Co. (NYSE: DE ), reported disappointing fiscal first-quarter 2016 results. Though the company surpassed our earnings estimates, it missed on revenues and provided a bleak outlook for full fiscal 2016, reflecting another year of declining sales and continued pullback in the global agricultural sector. Deere Q1 Results in Focus Earnings per share came in at 80 cents, comfortably beating the Zacks Consensus Estimate of 71 cents, but deteriorating 28.6% from the year-ago period. Revenues declined 15% year over year to $4.77 billion and lagged our estimate of $4.79 billion. The global agricultural slowdown and weakness in construction equipment markets were the major culprits for the lackluster revenue performance and this trend is likely to continue this year. Additionally, a strong dollar continues to weigh on the company’s profitability (read: Top and Flop Currency ETFs YTD ). As a result, the manufacturer expects 2016 to be another challenging year with overall equipment sales expected to drop 8% for the second quarter and 10% for fiscal 2016. Segment wise, the company expects global construction and forestry equipment sales to decline about 11% in fiscal 2016, including negative currency translation of 2%, and global sales of agriculture and turf equipment to drop 10%, including negative currency translation of 4%. The company also expects net income of about $1.3 billion for fiscal 2016. Market Impact Based on bleak outlook, shares of DE dropped as much as 4.7% on the day while trading volume was also heavy with around 9 million shares exchanged in hand compared with the 3-month average of around 3.6 million shares. Rough trading is expected to continue in the ETF world as well over the next few days, especially among those that have the largest allocation to this big agricultural equipment maker (see: all Materials ETFs here ). However, investors should closely monitor the movement of these funds and the stock, and could tap the beaten down prices with a low risk in the basket form. This is especially true as Deere has a solid Zacks Rank #2 (Buy) with additional flavors of a Value and Momentum Style Score of ‘B’ each. iShares MSCI Global Agriculture Producers ETF (NYSEARCA: VEGI ) This fund follows the MSCI ACWI Select Agriculture Producers Investable Market Index and offers investors global exposure to 128 firms that are primarily engaged in the business of agriculture. Here, Deere occupies the third position with a 7.9% allocation. From a sector look, agricultural chemicals takes the largest share at 47%, closely followed by farming/fishing (20%) and industrial engineering (18%). American firms dominate the fund’s holding with 45.4% of total assets, followed by a double-digit exposure to Switzerland. The ETF is less popular and illiquid with $24.7 million in its asset base and around 10,000 shares in average daily volume. The ETF charges 39 bps in fees per year from investors and has shed 2.2% post Deere results. Market Vectors Agribusiness ETF (NYSEARCA: MOO ) This fund is by far the most popular and liquid choice in the space with AUM of about $758.4 million and average daily volume of nearly 215,000 shares. It tracks the Market Vectors Global Agribusiness Index and charges 57 bps in annual fees. In total, the fund holds 53 securities in its basket with DE occupying the third spot at 6.8% of total assets (read: Market Crashing! ETFs & Stocks That Deserve Love ). The product provides nice diversity across business segments with agricultural chemicals accounting for 37% share while industrial engineering (17%), farming/fishing (14%) and packaged food products (13%) round off the next three spots. In terms of country allocation, half of the portfolio goes to the U.S. firms while Canada, Switzerland and Japan get a decent exposure of around 8% each. The fund lost 1.5% on the day of the earnings release. Original Post

Financial Stress Index Is Screaming, ‘Bear Market Rally’

What if investors had a way to determine the extent of “stress” in the financial system? And what if those stress levels could tell investors whether or not riskier assets (e.g., stocks, higher-yielding debt, etc.) can succeed without definitive U.S. Federal Reserve intervention? Consider the Cleveland Financial Stress Index (CFSI). The CFSI monitors the well-being of a wide range of financial markets, including credit, equity, foreign exchange, funding, real estate and securitization. According to the Cleveland Fed, a CFSI reading greater than 1.855 represents the highest threat level to the financial system. We’re sitting at 1.91. Click to enlarge Both the Asian Currency Crisis in 1998 and the eurozone Debt Crisis in 2011 wreaked havoc on the typical U.S. stock. Small company shares, mid-sized company shares as well as shares of the average large company declined 20%-30%. On the other hand, when the popular market cap-weighted Dow and S&P 500 barometers approached the 20% bear market line in those crises, the U.S. Federal Reserve promptly stepped in. In 1998, the Fed orchestrated a bailout of the infamous hedge fund, Long-Term Capital Management, and sharply cut interest rates. In 2011, the Fed helped coordinate worldwide central bank stimulus as well as introduced “Operation Twist” — selling short-dated U.S. Treasuries to buy longer-dated U.S. Treasuries for the purpose of depressing borrowing costs. What about 2008? The U.S. Federal Reserve did slash interest rates dramatically in the first quarter. What’s more, the Fed organized the bailout of Bear Stearns in March of that year, sparking a relief rally that kept the S&P 500 well above the bear market demarcation line for three more months. But it wasn’t enough. Even cutting the Fed Funds overnight lending rate to 0% by December wasn’t enough. The Fed wasn’t able to inspire confidence again until quantitative easing (QE) began in 2009. The recent rally for riskier assets here in 2016 is similar to relief rallies in the past; that is, shorter-term gains often overshadow longer-term financial distress as well as deteriorating market internals. For instance, a rising price ratio for iShares 7-10 Year Treasury (NYSEARCA: IEF ):iShares iBoxx High Yield Corporate Bond (NYSEARCA: HYG ) is indicative of a preference for risk-off investment grade credit over speculative higher yielding credit. Is there anything in the present IEF:HYG price ratio to suggest that the longer-term trend is abating? Now step back in time to the 10/2007-3/2009 bear. The IEF:HYG price ratio steadily marched higher until March of 2008. The Fed bailout of beleaguered financial firm Bear Stearns temporarily provided relief for risk assets, but the relief rally ended three months later. Once more, the IEF:HYG price ratio ascended like a mountain climbing enthusiast. History teaches us that the Fed is unlikely to ride to the rescue unless the Dow and the S&P 500 challenge bear market territory. Even then, the rescue endeavor would require sufficient firepower. These historical precedents, then, make the current relief rally particularly troubling. For the Fed to wait until the major benchmarks buckle means that the financial system may grow increasingly unstable. And by then, cutting rates back to the zero bound or twisting shorter-term maturities to purchase longer-dated ones may be insufficient. Again, the Fed’s own assessment tool places the financial system at the highest level of instability, Grade 4 “Significant Stress.” Recall that the iShares All World Ex US Index ETF (NASDAQ: ACWX ) has already depreciated 25%-plus from the top. Small caps in the Russell 2000 (NYSEARCA: IWM )? Ditto. Transportation stocks in the iShares DJ Transportation ETF (NYSEARCA: IYT )? Nearly 30% erosion. Bear market descents have occurred in virtually every stock arena. It follows that when a wide range of stock types are fading, and when a wide range of debt types of different credit quality relative to U.S. treasuries are faltering, popular benchmarks like the Dow and S&P 500 eventually follow suit. The S&P 500 SPDR Trust (NYSEARCA: SPY ) will not be a lone exception. A hold-n-hope advocate may not wish to change any aspect of his/her portfolio holdings, regardless of financial stress levels, historical probability, technical trends or fundamental overvaluation concerns. On the flip side, an investor who wishes to reduce exposure to downside risk can use a bear market rally to his/her advantage . Jettison a lower quality junk bond ETF for a higher quality investment grade corporate bond ETF like iShares Intermediate Credit (NYSEARCA: CIU ). Trade in a lower quality stock ETF for a higher quality stock ETF like iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor (NYSEARCA: QUAL ). And disregard those who boldly declare that “cash is trash.” My moderate growth and income clients have witnessed less volatility and have experienced better risk-adjusted returns with roughly 20%-30% cash/cash equivalents since last summer. (And that’s before the levee broke .) 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.

Investors Continue To Shy Away From Below-Investment-Grade Debt Funds

Mutual fund investors have been voting with their wallets on lower-quality bond funds. Funds in Thomson Reuters Lipper’s High Yield Funds and Loan Participation Funds classifications have seen their coffers shrink on a fairly consistent basis since the second half of last year. The net outflows for each have intensified as of late; High Yield Funds has suffered negative flows in 14 of the last 15 weeks (-$17.5 billion), and Loan Participation Funds is currently in a downward spiral of 22 consecutive weeks of net outflows (-$14.4 billion). This recent activity is the continuation of a longer-term trend; High Yield Funds has not experienced a positive annual net inflow since 2012 (+$21.1 billion), while Loan Participation Funds last took in net new money on an annual basis in 2013 (+$57.4 billion). During this latest run the largest net outflows among the high-yield fund universe belonged to some of the more well-known names in the field. The Ivy High Income Fund (MUTF: IVHEX ) (-$1.3 billion), the American Funds American High-Income Trust (MUTF: AHIFX ) (-$1.1 billion), and the PIMCO High Yield Fund (MUTF: PHLPX ) (-$1.0 billion) all saw over a billion dollars leave the fold. Trailing slightly behind this lead group were the BlackRock High Yield Bond Portfolio (MUTF: BHYAX )(-$911 million) and the JPMorgan High Yield Fund (MUTF: JHYUX ) (-$709 million). Similar to the high-yield fund universe, the most significant net outflows for loan participation funds over the most recent tracking period have been concentrated in a handful of funds. Since the start of the fourth quarter of last year there have been four funds whose negative flows have been significantly greater than the rest of the universe: The Oppenheimer Senior Floating Rate Fund (OOSA) (-$2.0 billion), the Fidelity Advisor Floating Rate High Income Fund (MUTF: FFRHX ) (-$1.3 billion), the RidgeWorth Seix Floating Rate High Income Fund (MUTF: SAMBX ) (-$1.1 billion), and the Eaton Vance Floating-Rate Fund (MUTF: EVBLX ) (-$960 million). Click to enlarge