Tag Archives: etfs

GSAM Makes The Case For Multimanager Alternatives

By DailyAlts Staff Record-low interest rates and historically high stock valuations have more and more investors considering liquid alternative investments, which Goldman Sachs Asset Management (“GSAM”) defines as “daily liquid investment strategies” that seek to deliver “differentiated returns from those of core assets” and the potential to mitigate overall portfolio risk and severe drawdowns. In a recent Strategic Advisory Solutions white paper, GSAM makes the case for a multimanager approach to liquid alternative investing – through single turnkey multimanager funds, allocations across multiple managers of the investor’s choosing, or a combination of both. Why Diversify an Alternatives Allocation? GSAM categorizes the liquid alts universe into five peer groups: Equity long/short Event driven Relative value Tactical trade/macro Multistrategy As shown in the table below, the median returns of each peer group have very little persistence from year to year. Therefore, by diversifying across peer groups, investors can avoid the highs and lows of any given year in any given strategy. Building from Scratch One approach to diversifying across liquid alternative peer groups is to “weave” several liquid alts into a “unified portfolio construction framework.” This approach may be best for investors seeking to express high-conviction market views of their own, or for those who possess deep knowledge of particular strategies and managers. But in GSAM’s view, the process of selecting liquid alts requires expertise in the asset class, knowledge of manager capabilities, and judgment of manager and strategy risks, among other things. This makes the “build” approach research-intensive, which may be a bit much for many investors. Turnkey Solutions On the opposite end of the spectrum is the “turnkey” approach – a pre-assembled package of alts, such as a multimanager alternative mutual fund. In this approach, investors effectively outsource the research-intensive process cited above to professional managers. On the downside, investors employing this approach don’t get a customized allocation, which means that their specific investment needs could potentially be better-served. What are some other risks to the multialternative approach? GSAM lists several, including: Performance may depend on the ability of the investment advisor to select, oversee, and allocate funds to individual managers, whose styles may not always be complementary. Managers may underperform the market generally or underperform other investment managers that could have been selected instead. Some managers have little experience managing liquid alternative funds, which differ from private investment funds. Investors should be mindful of these and other risks, according to GSAM. The Best of Both Worlds? GSAM calls combining the “build from scratch” and “turkey” approaches “Buy & Build.” This hybrid approach generally entails complementing a multialternative fund with one or more high-conviction managers the investor believes can potentially contribute to specific investment objectives. This “middle ground” between pure customization and an off-the-shelf solution gives investors additional flexibility with a fraction of the research-intensity. Conclusion In conclusion, GSAM states the company’s belief that multimanager strategies have the potential to help investors pursue additional sources of returns and to diversify their alternative investment allocations. In the firm’s view, investors who are new to investing generally opt for the single package approach to multimanager investing, while more experienced liquid alternative investors often consider building from scratch. The important thing, in GSAM’s estimation, is to understand the potential that liquid alts offer as an additional driver of portfolio returns. For more information, download a pdf copy of the white paper . Jason Seagraves contributed to this article.

Risk Asset Update: Vast Majority Agonize Since The S&P 500’s August Lows

The fact that lower energy prices are not providing the anticipated windfall to economic sectors that should benefit from lower oil prices continues to confound analysts and economists alike. Rapidly falling oil and commodity prices have hampered energy stocks, materials stocks and resources-dependent exporting countries. Yet investor trepidation has spread to other risk assets as well. If risking one’s capital in non-U.S. stocks, small-cap U.S. stocks, high yield bonds, foreign bonds commodities, and a wide range of U.S. sectors is proving detrimental, what’s left? Weren’t lower oil prices supposed to act like a “tax cut” for U.S. households? If families spend less at the gas pump, then they will spend more of their dollars at the mall. At least that’s what mainstream media cheerleaders like CNBC’s Jim Cramer have insisted throughout the year. In contrast, the S&P SPDR Retail Index (NYSEARCA: XRT ) demonstrates that investors are not particularly impressed by the prospects of American retailers. The current price for the exchange-traded fund tracker is lower than the price during the summertime stock market correction. What’s more, XRT is trading 14% below its 2015 high. Well, okay. Maybe consumers are pocketing some of their gasoline savings. Maybe they’re choosing to pay down some of their debts. No matter. Lower energy costs surely must boost bottom line profits of transportation companies – truckers, airlines, shippers, railways. Maybe not. The iShares DJ Transportation Average ETF (NYSEARCA: IYT ) shows that investors see big troubles for American transportation corporations. The current price on IYT is near a 52-week low and sits approximately 10% below a long-term 200-day trendline. Equally troubling, IYT is trading near the lows of the August-September sell-off and it remains down 16.5% year-to-date. The fact that lower energy prices are not providing the anticipated windfall to economic sectors that should benefit from lower oil prices continues to confound analysts and economists alike. For one thing, most of them have completely missed the cons of of commodity price depreciation; that is, gains for commodity users would be offset by losses for the producers (e.g., energy, materials, natural resources, etc.). Second, if the losses by the producers become bad enough, the number of resources-dependent exporters crimping global world product (GWP) can play into the notion of worldwide recessionary pressures. In other words, the U.S. is not an island; the well-being of the global economy matters more for risk taking in market-based securities than a simplistic assessment of oil savings benefiting retailers and/or transporters. Just how bad do resource-dependent exporters have it? The second largest non-OPEC provider of oil to the world is Canada. The iShares MSCI Canada ETF (NYSEARCA: EWC ) is in a bear market with price depreciation in the realm of 32%. Myopic S&P 500 bulls dismiss the bear market in energy stocks and energy-dependent producers like Canada. Yet the problems extend far beyond the oil patch. There is a 46% bearish decline across the entire commodity complex via the GreenHaven Continuous Commodity Index ETF (NYSEARCA: GCC ) due to weakening demand for “stuff” in the developing world and a surge in the U.S. dollar. When China, the world’s second largest economy and the world’s largest trader of goods witnesses year-over-year import declines of 18.8%, something’s not quite right. Rapidly falling oil and commodity prices have hampered energy stocks, materials stocks and resources-dependent exporting countries. Yet investor trepidation has spread to other risk assets as well. The demise of appetite for high yield bonds in the SPDR Barclays High Yield Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: JNK ) has been blamed on everything from energy company debt woes to the collapse of the mutual fund, Third Avenue Focused Credit. However, an in-depth look at the high yield bond space shows that “Ex-Energy” high yield bonds have been diverging from the S&P 500 throughout the year . In other words, people want out of junk bonds because they are lowering their overall risk profile, not simply because of the asset class association with the beleaguered energy sector. It is worth noting, then, that a wide range of risk assets are trading at prices that are in the same shape or in worse shape as they were back when the S&P 500 hit 52-week lows (1867). Energy stocks, retail stocks, transportation stocks, oil exporting countries, high yield bonds, commodities – each of these asset types are struggling mightily. And that’s not all. The iShares MSCI ACWI ex-U.S. Index ETF (NASDAQ: ACWX ) is more or less constrained. Small-cap U.S. stocks via the iShares Russell 2000 ETF (NYSEARCA: IWM ) are timid. In fact, both ACWX and IWM are below respective long-term moving averages and both are more than 10% off 52-week peaks set back in the first half of the year. If risking one’s capital in non-U.S. stocks, small-cap U.S. stocks, high yield bonds, foreign bonds commodities, and a wide range of U.S. sectors (e.g., energy, materials, utilities, retail, transports, etc.) is proving detrimental, what’s left? Large-caps via the S&P 500 and the NASDAQ . Even here, though, some of the leadership in biotech names have yet to recover former glory. The SPDR Biotech ETF (NYSEARCA: XBI ) trades lower today that it did when the S&P 500 hit its 1867 bottom; it is 25% off its 2015 pinnacle and well below its long-term trendline. In sum, leadership across risk assets is so narrow, risking one’s capital in anything other than the large-cap indexes may not be worth it. Indeed, one may wish to keep in mind that while the S&P 500 has been resilient in 2015, it has remained below its May record (2134) for close to seven months. More resilient? Long-term treasury bonds in the face of a Fed that intends to hike overnight lending rates. The iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: TLT ) is 5% higher than it was in the heat of July. 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.

4 Top-Ranked Large-Cap Blend Funds To Invest In

Large-cap blend mutual funds seek to offer value appreciation through capital gains with relatively less volatility by investing in both value and growth stocks. Blend funds, which are also known as “hybrid funds” owes its origin to a graphical representation of a fund’s equity style box. In addition to diversification, blend funds are great picks for investors looking for a mix of growth and value investment. Meanwhile, significant exposure to large-cap stocks makes these blend funds safer options for risk-averse investors, when compared to small-cap and mid-cap funds. Companies with market capitalization above $10 billion are generally considered as large-cap firms. Also, these funds are believed to provide long-term performance history and assure more stability than what mid-cap or small caps offer. Below we share with you 4 top-rated, large-cap blend mutual funds. Each has earned a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #1 (Strong Buy) and is expected to outperform its peers in the future. MFS Massachusetts Investors Trust A (MUTF: MITTX ) seeks growth of capital. MITTX primarily focuses on acquiring equity securities including common stocks. MITTX generally invests in securities of large-cap companies and may also include securities of companies located in foreign lands. The MFS Massachusetts Investors Trust A fund has a five-year annualized return of 11.4%. As of October 2015, MITTX held 88 issues with 3.13% of its assets invested in JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM ). Vanguard Growth & Income Investor (MUTF: VQNPX ) invests in a diversified group of stocks chosen with the help of quantitative analysis. VQNPX seeks stocks that are believed to provide dividend income and have impressive growth prospect and that, as a group, appears likely to provide higher returns than the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index while having similar risk characteristics. VQNPX invests a minimum of 65% of its assets in companies included in the index. The Vanguard Growth & Income Investor fund has a five-year annualized return of 13%. VQNPX has an expense ratio of 0.34% as compared to the category average of 1.04%. Hartford Disciplined Equity HLS Fund Inst (MUTF: HBGIX ) seeks capital appreciation. HBGIX maintains a diversified portfolio by investing the lion’s share of its assets in common stocks of companies across a wide range of sectors. Though HBGIX invests in securities irrespective of market capitalization, HBGIX primarily emphasizes large-cap companies with market capitalization within the range of the S&P 500 Index. HBGIX may invest a maximum of 20% of its assets in securities of foreign firms. The Hartford Disciplined Equity HLS IB fund has a five-year annualized return of 14.6%. Mammen Chally is the fund manager of HBGIX since 1998. Northern Large Cap Equity (MUTF: NOGEX ) invests a major portion of its assets in equity securities of large cap firms. These companies will have a market capital, at the time of purchase, within the range of those listed in the S&P 500 Index. The Northern Large Cap Equity fund has a five-year annualized return of 11.4%. NOGEX has an expense ratio of 0.86% as compared to the category average of 1.04%. Original Post