Tag Archives: etf

Netflix Leads 3 Stocks Breaking Out, In Buy Range

Here’s a look at three high-flying stocks that are breaking out in the stock market today: Netflix (NFLX), Palo Alto Networks (PANW) and Southwest Airlines (LUV). Netflix has an IBD Composite Rating of just 67 out of 99, partially because of its weak bottom-line performance as of late. But the stock has risen nearly 170% so far this year. Shares were up 1.9% to 127.77, which would be a new all-time closing high in fast turnover, breaking out of a

DMO Is The Best Of The Mortgage Bond Funds And It’s Bargain Priced

Summary DMO is a mortgage bond CEF that outclasses its competition and is well priced after a rough few months. I liked DMO in September. I like it more now. I liked DMO in September. I like it more today. When I last wrote about Western Asset Mortgage Defined Opp (NYSE: DMO ) I considered it to be the best of the mortgage-bond closed-end funds. It was selling at a small premium at the time, something I will generally avoid. But that premium was only 0.2%, so I decided to buy it anyway. It has been tracking down since, but that only makes me like it more. I’ve been watching it closely and am likely to add to my position before the end of the year. At the December 1 close, DMO had moved up smartly on the day (1.6%), but since that mid-September article, the fund is down -4.64% at market price and -2.55% at NAV. Why buy into a falling position? Let’s begin answering that question by having a look at how DMO compares to the entire fixed-income CEF category generally and mortgage-bond funds specifically. DMO vs. Its Categories This first chart shows total returns and distribution yields for DMO, along with median values for mortgage-bond CEFs (n=10) and all fixed-income CEFs (n=111). (click to enlarge) First thing to note here is that the past month and year have not been good to fixed-income CEFs across the board. This has been part of a broad trend for high-yield bonds. The large high-yield bond ETFs, iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond (NYSEARCA: HYG ) and SPDR Barclays High Yield Bond (NYSEARCA: JNK ), and the mortgage-bond ETF, iShares Mortgage Real Estate Capped ETF (NYSEARCA: REM ), are down comparable amounts. It doesn’t take intense scrutiny to see that DMO is beating its categories in all recent performance metrics. In the face of these numbers, I’m not terribly concerned about the dip since September. This is particularly evident if we turn our attention to NAV returns. Not that I like it, mind you, but I do not see it as cause for concern. Where everything else is negative, save REM’s meager 0.18% uptick for the past month, DMO’s NAV is solidly in the green. And NAV is what really counts in my view. But most of us look to a mortgage bond fund for income, not necessarily capital gains, right? DMO is yielding over 10% where the median mortgage-bond and fixed-income CEFs are paying 7.0% and 8.4%, respectively; and the high-yield bond ETFs are yielding near 6%. Only REM is paying more, but it is doing so with a consistent erosion of capital as we see in this price chart. (click to enlarge) Income investors will often give lip service to not caring about total return. If you’re investing in the likes of REM, I can see why you’d want to resort to that justification. You can, if you’re so inclined, look at REM in isolation in the total return chart and maybe feel okay about it. It has, after all, returned 35%, or would have done so had you been reinvesting dividends at no transaction costs. But look at that price chart above it. The 34% loss there is, in fact, a 34% loss of your capital if you invested in REM for current income five years ago. Sure, it’s been paying out a ton, but it’s been your own money in large measure, and you’ve had to pay taxes on it. If you had invested in DMO instead, you would have received 10% or so a year income plus your capital would have grown by 18%. Of course if you reinvested the distributions (again, assuming that magical chart-universe where there is no cost for doing so) you’d have more than three times what you would have had from the high-yield bonds or REM. So, as I said about UBS ETRACS Monthly Pay 2x Leveraged Mortgage REIT ETN (NYSEARCA: MORL ) in September, you can get a better yield than DMO, but with DMO you get to keep your money. I’ll not go into MORL again, other than to note that there are a substantial number of Seeking Alpha income-seekers who will sing its praises, praises that are completely unjustified in my opinion. A more complete look at MORL is on my to-do list, so if you’re interested in my take on it, it should be on your screen soon. I hope I’ve at least begun to convince you that DMO is an outstanding performer in the mortgage-bond space. If you need more, there are additional comparative historical performance data (in particular comparisons to the other mortgage bond CEFs and MORL) in the September article to assist in your due diligence. Why do I like it more as of December 1? Well, I did like it even better the day before, but even with the December 1 gain, DMO is much more attractively priced than it was in September when my only hesitation was that it was priced at that small premium coming off an uncharacteristic discounted period. At that time, I thought the trend would continue and the premium would continue to grow, so I felt it was as good an entry as the fund was going to present for a while. Wrong, obviously; it’s even better now. Premium/Discount Dynamics DMO has moved from a small premium to a decent discount, a move accompanied by that modest decrease in NAV (-2.6%). Distribution yield is up 60bps from mid-September as a consequence. While -1.87% is not a particularly deep discount in the CEF universe, it is, in my view, excellent for a fund of this quality. And the discount is moving in the right direction, according to the Z-scores. (click to enlarge) Where the mortgage-bond and fixed-income categories are, despite their lackluster performances, less discounted than their means (positive Z-scores) over the past 3 and 6 months, DMO is solidly in the other direction. The current discount is almost 1½ standard deviations more negative than the three-month mean. As I noted, one does not expect a fund of this quality to be running a deep discount, so that -1.87% looks pretty good to me right now. If you accept that it is a high-quality fund, and you consider Z-scores to at least suggest a direction for mean reversion, DOM looks good here. Distribution Sustainability Finally, a word about the sustainability of the distribution. This is always a consideration in fixed-income CEFs. Many high yielders maintain their yields by returning investor capital. This cannot continue indefinitely and, all too often, such funds will be forced into making drastic distribution cuts that lead to sharp price drops. One indicator of distribution sustainability is UNII, Undistributed Net Investment Income. DOM reported UNII of $0.62/share at the end of September. Its distribution is $0.21/share monthly, so there is little indication of a problem on that front. Summary I continue to like DMO and think it remains one of the best income opportunities. It has faltered lately, but less so than its peers. It is paying an attractive distribution. And there is no indication that the distribution payment is at risk as the fund is holding a quarter’s distributions worth of UNII. I realize that there is a lot of uncertainty and anxiety regarding a changing interest-rate environment, but I do not see a truly disruptive change on the near horizon. I do not anticipate anything like a devastating blow from a 25 to 75 bps raise from the Fed over the next year, which is what I consider as most likely scenario. My one caution is that it is best accommodated in a tax-deferred account because, as with any bond fund, the distributions are ordinary income and receive no favorable tax treatment.

IJR: A Small Cap ETF With A History Of Beating Peers

Summary IJR has very solid diversification within the portfolio. No holdings were listed over .7% and most were below .5%. The ETF has a great expense ratio that is comparable to funds from Schwab and Vanguard. The fund is heavy on the financial sector. The fund reports a beta of .84; however my calculations through InvestSpy suggested a beta of 1.16 for 5 years which was similar to other ETFs holding the same size. The iShares Core S&P Small-Cap ETF (NYSEARCA: IJR ) looks like a fairly reasonable ETF for investors seeking more exposure to small capitalization markets. The fund tracks the S&P SmallCap 600 Index which covers about 3% of the domestic equity market. Stocks in the index have a market capitalization between $400 million and $1.8 billion at the time of entry, though those criteria may fluctuate over time as market valuations change. The securities within the index are selected for liquidity and for industry group representation. The fund uses a passive strategy (also known as indexing) to track the underlying index. The portfolio is not actively managed in an attempt to beat the index and the portfolio will not shift to become more or less defensive based on management’s perspective of whether the market is over or under valued. The prospectus for IJR indicates that the fund uses representative sampling to track the index. That strategy involves selecting companies based on the total portfolio resembling the index. However, when I checked the holdings of the fund there were a hair over 600 individual holdings which is more than I would expect for representative sampling. Expenses The expense ratio is a .12%. This is a very reasonable expense ratio in my estimation. I tend to be fairly cheap on expense ratios and when the ratios go over .15% for domestic ETFs, I find the costs are simply too high and rarely believe that the underlying methodology for selecting stocks will generate enough additional returns before expenses to pay for the expense ratios. For comparison, funds from Vanguard and Schwab are ranging expense ratios from .08% to .09% for exposure specifically to small capitalization stocks. Dividend Yield The dividend yield is currently running 1.41%. For the investor that wants a very strong dividend yield to support them in retirement, this is still too low to qualify. However, for investors that simply want to generate total returns on a risk adjusted basis with increased exposure to small capitalization companies, the fund is still perfectly reasonable. Holdings I created the following chart to demonstrate the weight of the top 10 holdings: (click to enlarge) None of the holdings are over .7% and it seems the most rational way to analyze the fund is to look at the sector allocations. The sector exposure may change over time as the fund follows the index, but this is as close as we can come to assessing the current risk factors. Sectors The fund is heavily overweight on the financial sector and heavily underweight on some of the more defensive allocations such as utilities and consumer staples. For me, that would indicate a more aggressive strategy than I would prefer to use. However, if the investor is buying into the small cap space on the assumption of a prolonged bull market, than this allocation may be very reasonable for them. Conclusion All around this looks like a solid fund. The expense ratio is very reasonable and the holdings include substantial diversification to reduce the impact of any single negative company-specific events. The sector allocation is a little more aggressive than I would have preferred but overall the fund offers precisely what many investors in the small capitalization space would want. The interesting thing for me regarding the risk factors is that the latest fact sheet for the fund indicated that the fund had a beta of only .84. Based on those calculations it would appear that the fund is less volatile than I would expect from the representation of the sectors. I wanted comparable numbers to other ETFs holding small capitalization stocks. I ran a comparison through InvestSpy for the last five years and found a beta of 1.16 using their methodology. Clearly the methodology and the time frame used will have a material impact on risk assessments. The value I calculated on InvestSpy put IJR around the middle of the pack for the beta scores among ETFs investing in small capitalization stocks. On the other hand, their trailing 5 year return was beating every other comparable ETF with returns over 92%. This put them just behind the S&P 500 for the period. The results are demonstrated below. (click to enlarge) When I ran the same test with a time period of 2 years, rather than 5 years, the beta calculated dropped down to .99. In this case, the apparent volatility is materially impacted by the time span that is chosen.