Tag Archives: data

How To Predict Fund Performance (Podcast)

By Ronald Delegge The phrase “past performance is not an indicator of future performance” is a frequently written and spoken legal disclaimer for virtually all investments sold by Wall Street. Yet, hardly anyone from individual investors all the way to investment sales people really act like they believe it. Asset flows inevitably gravitate into funds with the hottest historical performance. And if a fund happens to be christened with a 4 or 5-star rating, the money really pours in. In fact, the very first thing that retail investors and professionals infatuate themselves with is historical performance. The herd mentality with picking mutual funds goes something like this: “The _____________ (fill in the blank) fund has easily outperformed the S&P 500 (NYSEARCA: VOO ) over the past ____________ (fill in the blank) years. It’s a proven winner!” And that’s generally how buy decisions are made. Never mind how the fund’s benchmark is irrelevant or how much risk the fund actually takes or how much the fund charges. None of these petty details matter to the historical performance enamored investor. Yet, people who focus exclusively on past performance are doomed to future underperformance. It’s one of those predictable ironies, that’s confirmed in new research from Morningstar. The study highlights the mistake of emphasizing historical performance. “While we think it makes sense to consider a variety of factors when choosing funds, our research continues to find that fund fees are a strong and dependable predictor of future success,” said Russel Kinnel, chair of Morningstar’s North America ratings committee. In other words, historical performance isn’t a determining factor in future returns. Kinnel added, “We found that the cheapest funds were at least two to three times more likely to succeed than the priciest funds. Strikingly, our finding held across virtually every asset class and time period we examined, which clearly indicates that investors should keep cost in mind no matter what type of fund they are considering.” (You can listen to Ron DeLegge’s full podcast interview with Russel Kinnel on the Index Investing Show. ) Highlights of the Morningstar study include: The lowest-cost U.S. stock funds succeeded three times as often as the highest-cost funds. The least-expensive quintile had a total return success rate of 62%, compared with 48% for the second-cheapest quintile, 39% for the middle quintile, 30% for the second-priciest quintile, and 20% for the most-expensive quintile. International-equity funds had a 51% success ratio for the least-expensive quintile compared with 21% for the most-expensive quintile. Among taxable-bond funds (NYSEARCA: BND ), the least-expensive quintile delivered a 59% success rate versus 17% for the most-expensive quintile. Municipal bond funds (NYSEARCA: MUB ) showed a similar pattern, with a 56% success rate for the least-expensive quintile and 16% for the most-expensive quintile. Disclosure: No positions Link to the original post on ETFguide.com

Salesforce, Palo Alto, Red Hat In Race To $100 Billion Market Cap

A bullish Morgan Stanley reports calls Salesforce.com ( CRM ) the most likely software company to next hit the milestone of a $100 billion market valuation, though it says security firm Palo Alto Networks ( PANW ) is also in the hunt. Salesforce.com, a top provider of cloud-based software-as-a-service, has a market cap of $56 billion, while Palo Alto’s valuation is nearly $13 billion. “With the most customer data in the cloud and multiple solutions targeting over 62 million users, we see Salesforce.com as the clear leader in SaaS-based applications and well on their way to a $100 billion market cap,” Keith Weiss, a Morgan Stanley analyst, said in a research report. Salesforce.com stock has rallied since early February, after plunging at the start of 2016. Salesforce stock was up nearly 2% in midday trading in the stock market today , near 83. Salesforce.com has an IBD Composite Rating of 99, the highest possible. IBD Take: How does Salesforce.com rate a 99 CR? Find out with IBD Stock Checkup. As for Palo Alto Networks, Weiss wrote that “to achieve the revenue scale necessary to become a $100 billion market cap company, Palo Alto must successfully expand their focus from the network security segment to the broader pool of overall security spending.” Weiss says Red Hat ( RHT ) is also well positioned in the cloud market but might not reach the $100 billion valuation mark. It’s now less than $14 billion. As for a couple of other fast-growing SaaS providers, Weiss points to stiff competition. “In our view, the problem with Qlik Technologies ( QLIK ) or Tableau Software ( DATA ) becoming the next $100 billion company is the competitive environment,” he wrote. Salesforce.com will remain strong in SaaS, Weiss says, despite cloud competition from the likes of  Amazon.com ( AMZN ), Google parent  Alphabet ( GOOGL ) and Microsoft ( MSFT ). San Francisco-based Salesforce.com garners mainly subscription revenue from on-demand software delivered via the Internet cloud. It’s the No. 1 provider of customer relationship software. “With SaaS-based applications’ faster innovation cycles and easier integration of new functionality, it becomes harder for vendors to sustain differentiation and enables (broad product) vendors to garner broader ecosystems and higher market share — as seen by Salesforce.com’s 40%+ share of the sales force automation market,” Weiss wrote.

Q2 2016 Style Ratings For ETFs And Mutual Funds

At the beginning of the second quarter of 2016, only the Large Cap Value and Large Cap Blend styles earn an Attractive-or-better rating. Our style ratings are based on the aggregation of our fund ratings for every ETF and mutual fund in each style. Investors looking for style funds that hold quality stocks should look no further than the Large Cap Value and Large Cap Blend styles. These styles house the most Attractive-or-better rated funds. Figures 4 through 7 provide more details. The primary driver behind an Attractive fund rating is good portfolio management , or good stock picking, with low total annual costs . Attractive-or-better ratings do not always correlate with Attractive-or-better total annual costs. This fact underscores that (1) cheap funds can dupe investors and (2) investors should invest only in funds with good stocks and low fees. See Figures 4 through 13 for a detailed breakdown of ratings distributions by style. Figure 1: Ratings For All Investment Styles Click to enlarge Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings To earn an Attractive-or-better Predictive Rating, an ETF or mutual fund must have high-quality holdings and low costs. Only the top 30% of all ETFs and mutual funds earn our Attractive or better rating. Absolute Shares WBI Tactical LCV Shares (NYSEARCA: WBIF ) is the top rated Large Cap Value fund. It gets our Very Attractive rating by allocating over 34% of its value to Attractive-or-better-rated stocks. Ameriprise Financial (NYSE: AMP ) is one of our favorite stocks held by WBIF and earns a Very Attractive rating. Over the past decade, Ameriprise has grown after-tax profit ( NOPAT ) by 8% compounded annually. The company has improved its return on invested capital ( ROIC ) from -2% in 2008 to 11% in 2015. Similarly, the company has increased its NOPAT margin from 11% in 2005 to 14% in 2015. Across all facets, Ameriprise is improving business fundamentals, yet the stock remains undervalued. At its current price of $99/share, AMP has a price-to-economic book value ( PEBV ) ratio of 1.1. This ratio means that the market expects Ameriprise to grow NOPAT by only 10% over its remaining corporate life. If AMP can grow NOPAT by just 6% compounded annually for the next decade , the stock is worth $132/share today – a 33% upside. ProFunds Mid-Cap Value ProFund (MUTF: MLPSX ) is the worst rated Small Cap Value fund. It gets our Very Dangerous rating by allocating over 37% of its value to Dangerous-or-worse-rated stocks. Making matters worse, total annual costs are a whopping 6.72%. New York Community Bancorp (NYSE: NYCB ) is one of our least favorite stocks held by MLPSX and earns a Dangerous rating. Over the past decade, New York Community Bancorp’s NOPAT has declined from -$294 million to -$80 million. Over the same time period, the company’s ROIC declined from 8% to a bottom-quintile -1%, while its NOPAT margins fell from 43% in 2005 to -13% in 2015. Worst of all, the stock has not followed this decline in operating performance and is significantly overvalued. In order to justify its current price of $15/share, NYCB must immediately achieve positive pre-tax margins of 18% (from -21% in 2015) and grow revenue by 31% compounded annually for the next 13 years . In this scenario, NYCB would be generating over $20 billion in revenue 13 years from now, which is equal to Aflac’s (NYSE: AFL ) revenue in the last fiscal year. It’s clear the expectations baked into NYCB are overly optimistic. Figure 2 shows the distribution of our Predictive Ratings for all investment style ETFs and mutual funds. Figure 2: Distribution of ETFs & Mutual Funds (Assets and Count) by Predictive Rating Click to enlarge Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Figure 3 offers additional details on the quality of the investment style funds. Note that the average total annual cost of Very Dangerous funds is almost four times that of Very Attractive funds. Figure 3: Predictive Rating Distribution Stats Click to enlarge * Avg TAC = Weighted Average Total Annual Costs Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings This table shows that only the best of the best funds get our Very Attractive Rating: they must hold good stocks AND have low costs. Investors deserve to have the best of both and we are here to give it to them. Ratings by Investment Style Figure 4 presents a mapping of Very Attractive funds by investment style. The chart shows the number of Very Attractive funds in each investment style and the percentage of assets in each style allocated to funds that are rated Very Attractive. Figure 4: Very Attractive ETFs & Mutual Funds by Investment Style Click to enlarge Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Figure 5 presents the data charted in Figure 4 Figure 5: Very Attractive ETFs & Mutual Funds by Investment Style Click to enlarge Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Figure 6 presents a mapping of Attractive funds by investment style. The chart shows the number of Attractive funds in each style and the percentage of assets allocated to Attractive-rated funds in each style. Figure 6: Attractive ETFs & Mutual Funds by Investment Style Click to enlarge Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Figure 7 presents the data charted in Figure 6. Figure 7: Attractive ETFs & Mutual Funds by Investment Style Click to enlarge Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Figure 8 presents a mapping of Neutral funds by investment style. The chart shows the number of Neutral funds in each investment style and the percentage of assets allocated to Neutral-rated funds in each style. Figure 8: Neutral ETFs & Mutual Funds by Investment Style Click to enlarge Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Figure 9 presents the data charted in Figure 8. Figure 9: Neutral ETFs & Mutual Funds by Investment Style Click to enlarge Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Figure 10 presents a mapping of Dangerous funds by fund style. The chart shows the number of Dangerous funds in each investment style and the percentage of assets allocated to Dangerous-rated funds in each style. The landscape of style ETFs and mutual funds is littered with Dangerous funds. Investors in Small Cap Value funds have put over 34% of their assets in Dangerous-rated funds. Figure 10: Dangerous ETFs & Mutual Funds by Investment Style Click to enlarge Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Figure 11 presents the data charted in Figure 10. Figure 11: Dangerous ETFs & Mutual Funds by Investment Style Click to enlarge Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Figure 12 presents a mapping of Very Dangerous funds by fund style. The chart shows the number of Very Dangerous funds in each investment style and the percentage of assets in each style allocated to funds that are rated Very Dangerous. Figure 12: Very Dangerous ETFs & Mutual Funds by Investment Style Click to enlarge Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Figure 13 presents the data charted in Figure 12. Figure 13: Very Dangerous ETFs & Mutual Funds by Investment Style Click to enlarge Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings D isclosure: David Trainer and Kyle Guske II receive no compensation to write about any specific stock, sector or theme. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.