Tag Archives: energy

BUI: Has It Held Up In The Downturn?

I looked at BlackRock Utility and Infrastructure Trust not too long ago. Comparing it to UTG, the big difference was the use of options versus leverage. Is that not so subtle difference playing out as expected? One of my favorite utility and infrastructure closed-end funds, or CEFs, is the Reaves Utility Income Fund (NYSEMKT: UTG ). But it’s far from the only fund out there that focuses on this space, which is why readers asked that I look at the BlackRock Utility and Infrastructure Trust (NYSE: BUI ), a much younger entrant in the space. At the time I first looked at the two together I said I liked UTG better, but that BUI theoretically should hold up better in a downturn. Well, it’s time to look at how that’s playing out. Similar, but different UTG and BUI both invest in the infrastructure that makes our modern world work. That includes electric companies, but also things like water utilities, oil companies, airports, and railroads. Both take a pretty broad look at their niche. But, in the end, they both are looking to do a very similar thing. However, that doesn’t mean their portfolios are alike. For example, at the end of June, the energy space made up around 6% of UTG’s portfolio. That number at BUI was a far more meaty 24%. So similar, but different. Which is to be expected since the CEFs are offered by two different sponsors. However, there’s another notable difference here, too. UTG attempts to enhance returns via the use of leverage. BUI looks to boost returns, specifically income, via the use of an option overlay strategy. In a flat to slowly rising market these two approaches should probably produce similar results. In a fast rising market I’d expect UTG’s leverage to result in better returns. And in a down market, I’d expect BUI’s use of options to soften the blow of the decline. That’s what I’d expect, anyway. Now that we’ve seen the utility and other income-oriented sectors fall this year, what really happened? A mixed bag Year to date through August, the net asset value, or NAV, total return for UTG was a loss of 9.3%. BUI’s loss over that same span was a more mild 6.7%. On an absolute basis that’s not such a big difference, but on a percentage basis BUI “outdistanced” (perhaps under-lost?) UTG by around 25%. That’s a pretty big difference. All return numbers assume the reinvestment of distributions. So, on the whole, I’d say that the option overlay did perform as expected. To stress the point, the Vanguard Utilities ETF (NYSEARCA: VPU ) was also down over 9% over the year-to-date period through August. But pull back some and things get a little more interesting. Over the trailing year through August, VPU was essentially break even. UTG, meanwhile, was down 3.3%. BUI was down roughly 5.5%. What gives? For starters, both UTG and BUI have broader investment mandates than VPU. And UTG and BUI are stock pickers, using human intelligence (or not, depending on your opinion of active management) to select stocks. Put another way, VPU has a much tighter focus on utilities. It also doesn’t use leverage, which through a good portion of the time was a drag on UTG’s performance. So I can understand why it did better than BUI and UTG over the trailing year, which has been a pretty turbulent time in the markets for some of the additional areas in which these two CEFs have ventured. But why has BUI underperformed UTG by so much over the trailing year? The answer is most likely the previously mentioned weighting difference in the energy sector. Oil prices, and the stocks associated with the energy sector, started to fall around mid-2014. So, it makes sense that BUI, with a much heavier weighting in the sector, would be hit harder over the trailing year period. And it’s hard to say that the oil downturn is over, yet, either. Which adds a notable amount of risk to owning BUI relative to UTG. Who wins? So, in the end, this difficult period isn’t a clear win for BUI or for UTG. It kind of depends on what period you’re looking at and how you define success. For example, looking even further afield, BUI was down 5.5% over the past year, but that was much better than the Vanguard Energy ETF (NYSEARCA: VDE ) which was down over 30% even though BUI underperformed utility-focused VPU, which was pretty much break even over the span. If you liked the extra oil exposure BUI offered versus UTG when oil was doing well, it’s hard to complain when it starts to work against you. And then there’s this year, when utilities took a hit and UTG underperformed relative to BUI. With leverage adding a helping hand to the downside along the way at UTG and option income softening the blow at BUI. So the use of options did, indeed, appear to do what you’d expect. I still like UTG. It’s a solid fund with a long history of navigating volatile markets and rewarding shareholders along the way. BUI is really seeing its first serious stress test. That said, I think it’s holding up pretty well. And, at the end of the day, I don’t think either is a poorly run CEF. Looking at the two today, UTG’s discount is narrower than normal at around 2%-about half the normal 4% or so over the trailing three years. It isn’t cheap, but then investors are likely rewarding it for its strong historical performance. A flight to safety, if you will. BUI, meanwhile, is trading at a roughly 13% discount versus its trailing three-year average discount of 9.5% or so. It’s clearly the cheaper of the two funds. BUI is also offering a more generous distribution yield, at 8.6%. UTG’s distribution yield is a more modest 6.4% or so. Neither is outlandish, but UTG’s lower yield is likely to be more sustainable over the long-term. That said, if you are looking for yield and prefer wider discounts, BUI looks like the better play-but only if you believe the oil market has stopped falling… If you are conservative, UTG is still the one to watch. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Movers And Shakers Post-Fed

Below is a snapshot of recent asset class performance using key ETFs traded on U.S. exchanges. For each ETF, we highlight its performance over the last 2 days (since Wednesday’s close), so far in September, and so far in 2015. As shown, while the SPDR S&P 500 Trust ETF (NYSEARCA: SPY ) and the SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF (NYSEARCA: DIA ) are both down month to date, the Nasdaq 100 (NASDAQ: QQQ ) and mid-caps and small-caps are up nicely. Growth ETFs are up 1%+ month to date while value ETFs are in the red. Looking at sectors, Energy (NYSEARCA: XLE ) and Financials (NYSEARCA: XLF ) have gotten hit hard over the last two days since the Fed opted not to hike rates. Industrials (NYSEARCA: XLI ), Materials (NYSEARCA: XLB ), and Technology (NYSEARCA: XLK ) are all down as well. The Utilities ETF (NYSEARCA: XLU ) is the only sector that’s up post-Fed. Outside of the U.S., Brazil (NYSEARCA: EWZ ) continues to paint the tape red. It’s now down 35.44% year to date after falling 3.32% over the last two days. India (NYSEARCA: INP ) was bouncing Friday, but that’s about the only area in the green. Treasury ETFs have been the main winners since the Fed held rates unchanged, with the iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: TLT ) up 2.25% since Wednesday’s close. Gold (NYSEARCA: GLD ) and silver (NYSEARCA: SLV ) are up nicely as well. Share this article with a colleague

Can Investors Achieve Commodity Exposure Via Equities?

By Wesley R. Gray, Ph.D. This past year we examined the possibility of replicating commodity exposure via equities. The project was spurred by an insightful research report from MSCI , which showed some impressive results. Other research outfits have proposed similar concepts . The figure below, taken from the MSCI report, highlights how well the MSCI Select Commodity Producers Index replicates various commodity indices over 2010-2012: (click to enlarge) The results are hypothetical, are NOT an indicator of future results, and do NOT represent returns that any investor actually attained. Indexes are unmanaged, do not reflect management or trading fees, and one cannot invest directly in an index. Additional information regarding the construction of these results is available upon request. We replicate these results and come to similar conclusions: Correlations for commodities and commodity-related-equities are > .8 from 2010-2012. However … and this is a big however… When we look at a longer out-of-sample period, from 1991 to 2014, correlations are much lower (the best versions of our algorithms can get the correlation in the .6-.7 range after intense data-mining). The executive summary below is from a 125-page internal report we did on commodity via equity replication. The correlation figures represent the full-sample correlations between the underlying commodities and some of our top replication techniques. Clearly, the evidence below suggests that we should be skeptical of claims that commodity exposures can be effectively replicated via commodity-related equities. Especially, when the sample period analyzed is short. (click to enlarge) The results are hypothetical, are NOT an indicator of future results, and do NOT represent returns that any investor actually attained. Indexes are unmanaged, do not reflect management or trading fees, and one cannot invest directly in an index. Additional information regarding the construction of these results is available upon request. Understanding Commodity Replication via Equities Accessing commodity exposures can be complicated. Consider oil exposure: Buy oil futures? The oil ETF? Oil stocks? Each of these option has pros and cons. Futures Futures appear straight forward, and require less margin than equities; however, these contracts trade in large notional amounts (eliminating the option for retail investors), incur transaction costs (potential roll costs and other transaction costs), and trading futures should not be viewed as a buy-and-hold investment (e.g., see research here and here ). Many investors view commodity futures like stocks, where an investor simply buys and holds over the long term and grinds out the equity risk premium. But this is not the right frame of thinking. Commodity futures aren’t equities. Futures are a traded asset class, and being active – not passive – is the only way to capture the potential risk premiums offered by commodities (e.g., term structure). ETFs that own futures One can buy an oil ETF that owns oil futures, which is simple and requires less capital, but there are management fees, and these funds still have embedded future trading costs. Stock replication One could also explore investing in stocks that are in the oil business. This approach has some huge potential benefits: tax-efficiency (i.e., deferral), simplicity, no roll risks, dividend payments, etc. However, the biggest risk is that oil stocks may not necessarily capture the exposure of oil future prices. For example, some oil producers may hedge production, thus limiting their business exposure to underlying oil price fluctuations, and thus, their correlation to the underlying commodity. In order to deal with this risk, one needs to engineer a specific portfolio and actively manage the exposures. How to Replicate Commodity Futures via Equity Portfolios In this piece, we look at different algorithms that form portfolios meant to capture commodity risk exposure via equities. To facilitate understanding, we focus on an analysis of the energy sector. In order to replicate commodity returns with stocks, we look at 3 approaches (one can mix and match or add additional techniques, but these are the big muscle movements): Identify commodity-related sectors and the associated stocks (e.g., oil sectors stocks should follow oil more than information technology stocks would). Identify % revenue generated by specific sectors (e.g., an oil stock that generates 95% of its revenue from the oil sector is better than one with 51%). Identify past correlations between stocks and commodities (e.g., an oil stock with a 90% historical correlation is better than one with a 50% correlation). In the end, we perform a variety of data-mining techniques that mix and match various elements to try and data-fit the portfolios that have the highest correlation out-of-sample. Here is an example combination approach that seems to be most effective in our research: Identify companies in a specific SIC sector (e.g., primary SIC code is energy). Confirm that the firms identified have 50%+ of their revenue from energy For firms identified in steps 1 and 2, calculate rolling past 12-month correlations with energy returns. Purchase the top 10% highest correlated firms (can equal-weight or value-weight the portfolio) Monthly re-balance. Some Example Results SP500 = S&P 500 Total Return Index future_energy_ew = equal-weighted across 6 energy futures (natural gas, crude oil, Brent crude, gasoline, heating oil, and gas oil) equity_energy_ew_12m daily corr = equal-weighted, top 10% 12-month rolling correlation using daily returns, re-balance at the end of month equity_energy_vw_12m daily corr = value-weighted, top 10% 12-month rolling correlation using daily returns, re-balance at the end of the month Results are gross of fees. All returns are total returns and include the reinvestment of distributions (e.g., dividends). Indexes are unmanaged, do not reflect management or trading fees, and one cannot invest directly in an index. Summary Performance 1992/05 to 2014/12 (click to enlarge) The results are hypothetical, are NOT an indicator of future results, and do NOT represent returns that any investor actually attained. Indexes are unmanaged, do not reflect management or trading fees, and one cannot invest directly in an index. Additional information regarding the construction of these results is available upon request. The correlation results are not promising – average correlation is 65-67% – a far cry from the 90%+ results we’d like to see if we wanted to replicate commodity future returns with equity. Invested Growth 1992/05 to 2014/12 (click to enlarge) The results are hypothetical, are NOT an indicator of future results, and do NOT represent returns that any investor actually attained. Indexes are unmanaged, do not reflect management or trading fees, and one cannot invest directly in an index. Additional information regarding the construction of these results is available upon request. Energy-related stocks don’t track energy sector futures that well over time. Looking inside the black box: Sample stock names as of 2014/12/31, market cap in millions (click to enlarge) The results are hypothetical, are NOT an indicator of future results, and do NOT represent returns that any investor actually attained. Indexes are unmanaged, do not reflect management or trading fees, and one cannot invest directly in an index. Additional information regarding the construction of these results is available upon request. Conclusion Based on the analysis above, replicating commodity futures via equity is mediocre, at best. In contrast to MSCI, we’re not convinced . Determining if commodity exposure is a benefit to a portfolio is a complex issue, but given that one believes in the benefit of exposing a portfolio to the commodity sector, trying to access these exposures via equity replication probably isn’t going to work that well… at least not as well as previously contemplated. Original Post