Tag Archives: etfs

The Importance Of Emphasizing Quality And Financial Health In Your Stock Holdings

A majority of stock fund managers want corporations to improve their financial health as opposed to rewarding shareholders through buybacks and dividends. Unfortunately, the ability for corporations to service existing debt is at its lowest point since 2009. Companies with the highest-rated financial health have outperformed SPY in 2015, whereas buyback “achieving” corporations have been sliding. According to a recent Bank of America Merrill Lynch survey, a majority of stock fund managers want corporations to improve their financial health as opposed to rewarding shareholders through buybacks and dividends. That has not happened since the earliest stages of the economic recovery. Why are asset managers, myself included, expressing concern about what companies do with their money? They’ve taken on too much debt. They are leveraged to the hilt . In fact, corporations owe more interest on their debt than at any prior point in history. That’s not a problem, you argue. The only thing that matters for “credit-worthy” businesses is their ability to service their obligations. And the Federal Reserve will remain very accommodating for many years to come. Unfortunately, the ability for corporations to service existing debt (a.k.a. “interest coverage”) is at its lowest point since 2009. Imagine that. In spite of a Fed that has kept overnight lending rates near zero for seven years, companies face the same challenge with debt servicing today as they had back in the recession. Worse yet, what is the probable outcome for corporations if Janet Yellen and her Fed colleagues actually hike borrowing costs in the near future? Perhaps you are skeptical about the notion that public corporations might stumble with respect to growing their businesses while paying back existing debts. Then you might want to look at the changing landscape for companies that reward shareholders with stock buybacks. At the start of the current recovery up through the end of last year (12/31/2014), the PowerShares Buyback Achievers Portfolio ETF (NYSEARCA: PKW ) outperformed the SPDR S&P 500 Trust ETF (NYSEARCA: SPY ) by a landslide (i.e., 187% to 125%). Since the start of 2015, however, companies borrowing to buy back their stock shares have lost significant momentum. The declining PKW:SPY price ratio below demonstrates the shift from confidence to concern. Why should corporations that are limiting stock supply and increasing demand through their buybacks see their share underperform? In essence, there’s trepidation that some corporations have borrowed beyond sensible leverage ratios and simultaneously puffed up their earnings in ways that may not reflect organic growth. Keep in mind, business loans as a percentage of GDP are higher now than at August of 2000 and at August of 2007. The use of leverage by households, government, financial companies and non-financial companies was certainly out of control at those moments in history. What’s more, the leverage extremes of the past led to credit cycle and business cycle contractions. It follows that it may be reasonable to assume that credit contraction is likely to occur soon enough. In fact, extremes in the use of leverage tend to downshift at the least opportune times. Fewer borrowed dollars would mean less money for productive purposes (e.g., plants, equipment, human resources, research, etc.) or for immediate investor benefit (e.g., share buybacks, dividend increases, etc.). Some may believe that central bankers are more prepared for a severe pullback in credit today. Perhaps they would turn toward an even larger open-ended quantitative easing (QE) program or implement a policy of negative interest rates. The only problem is, corporate bond issuers are already seeing diminishing benefits of lower yields. The Fed, the Bank of Japan, The European Central Bank may be eager to promote lending at a time when they see a need for more stimulus, but it may not matter if households and corporations are fearful of additional borrowing. It should come as no surprise, then, that companies with the highest-rated financial health have outperformed SPY in 2015. Whereas buyback “achieving” corporations have been sliding via the PKW:SPY price ratio above, the iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF (NYSEARCA: QUAL ):SPY price ratio has been rising throughout the year. Binge borrowing by corporations may not be a death knell for the bull market in stocks. Nevertheless, when one factors earnings declines and revenue declines into diminishing benefits from ultra-low borrowing costs, one may find it less lucrative to buy every dip. 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.

Portfolio Allocations: Bet Sizing

The math that dictates optimal portfolio allocations is complicated and an overly simplistic approach introduces a lot of unnecessary risk. The math of “gambling” and the math of investing share a lot of similarities. I believe the math presented below is equally applicable to both worlds. While EV (Expected Value) is a critical concept, it is meaningless without the concept of EG (Expected Growth). Chip Kelly is not the guy the “Kelly Criterion” is named after, but his presence creates interesting football betting opportunities. As a guy who many would consider to be a “professional gambler,” the concept of bet sizing has been something that I have spent a lot of time thinking about. I firmly believe trading stocks and derivatives for great portfolio managers is not all that different from playing poker for elite poker players. Individual investments for a portfolio manager and individual bets of a poker player (or elite sports handicapper) may be extremely risky, but the entire set of investments that make up a portfolio or long series of bets over time by a “professional gambler” are likely to yield a high return with a relatively low risk over the long run. This article is in response to an Instablog written by one of the most interesting contributors on this site, Chris DeMuth . He gives a relatively simple methodology of how to allocate capital. He presents the basic premise that he will invest around 1.25% of his portfolio in an investment he likes and will increase his position in the stock if he continues to love it as the price declines. He will continue to add to this position until a maximum of 10% of his portfolio is allocated to the individual investment. Adding to an investment that is becoming more undervalued relative to its fair market value makes a lot of sense. However, the exact portfolio allocations he suggests seem to be quite arbitrarily chosen instead of meticulously calculated. Based on my user name, it is probably clear that I have spent a lot of time in my life thinking about the fancy math of endeavors most would consider to be reckless gambling. I would like to introduce the idea of the Kelly Criterion, the most fundamental formula for elite sports gamblers. You can read about it here . What this magic formula does is tell you how much of your portfolio (bankroll) you should invest (bet) on a particular investment in order to maximize the growth of your portfolio given your estimate of the probability of winning and the odds received on the wager. The formula is written below: Every investor (bettor) is familiar with the concept of EV (Expected Value). Everyone knows that positive EV bets are wonderful. However, there is a corresponding concept that is much less well understood. It is the idea of Expected Growth, and frankly, it is equally important to understand as Expected Value when thinking about portfolio allocations. Let’s consider an investment where you are allowed to bet on a game of flipping quarters. The odds of picking a winning bet are 50% when flipping a quarter one time. Let’s also assume that in this generous game that for each flip of the quarter, you are getting a +200 payout. For those of you not familiar with common sports gambling notation, this means that you are given 2-1 on your wager. If you wager $1 on this bet and lose, you will lose $1. However, if you win, you will receive back $3 ($1 for your initial investment and a $2 profit). Better yet, let us assume that there are no caps on how much we are allowed to bet. This is a wonderful game that I would love to play forever everyday if it were readily available. Let’s now further assume you have a bankroll of $1,000,000. You are allowed to play this game only two times. In this game, there are four distinct possible outcomes (the sample space) that each have the same probability of occurring. The 4 possible outcomes are as follows: Win both the first and second bets. Win the first bet, lose the second bet. Lose the first bet, win the second bet. Lose both the first and second bets. Let’s assume that you are conservative and wager 1% of your bankroll on each coin flip. These are the possible outcomes of the size of your bankroll after playing the game of 2 quarter flips. Bankroll = $1,000,000 x (1 + (2 * 0.01)) x (1 + (2 * 0.01)) = $1,040,400 Bankroll = $1,000,000 x (1 + (2 * 0.01)) x (1 – (1 * 0.01)) = $1,009,800 Bankroll = $1,000,000 x (1 – (1 * 0.01)) x (1 + (2 * 0.01)) = $1,009,800 Bankroll = $1,000,000 x (1 – (1 * 0.01)) x (1 – (1 * 0.01)) = $980,100 Since each of these results is equally likely, the Expected Value of the outcome of these sequential bets is a profit of $10,025 (or 1.0025%). Expected Growth (EG) is a little bit more tricky. In order to figure it out (without having the formula in front of you), you must see what the expected outcome is. Since the odds of the game are always 50/50 for each coin flip, the expected outcome is simply winning once for each time you lose. Since we are flipping the coin twice, the expected outcome is to win once and lose once. The order that you win or lose doesn’t matter as the bankroll ends up at the same number either way in this game. The bankroll, based on the calculations above, in the expected outcome is $1,009,800, which is a profit of $9,800 (or 0.98%). This 0.98% is the EG. For those that are interested in generalized equations, here they are: Bankroll after Expected Outcome = (Initial Bankroll) * (1 + (Decimal Odds – 1) * (Bet Size / Initial Bankroll))p * (1 – (Bet Size / Initial Bankroll))(1 – p) EG = (1 + (Decimal odds – 1) * (Bet Size / Initial Bankroll))p * (1 – (Bet Size / Initial Bankroll))(1-p) – 1 EV = ((p * Decimal Odds) – 1) * (Bet Size / Initial Bankroll) where p is the probability of winning Let’s look at a fun example of playing that original game but instead of betting 1% of your bankroll on each coin flip, you want to make a bet with a higher EV and bet 90% of your bankroll. (For those of you still reading at this point, that is far greater than what the Kelly criterion says you should bet.) The 4 possible outcomes are as follows again: Win both the first and second bets. Win the first bet, lose the second bet. Lose the first bet, win the second bet. Lose both the first and second bets. Bankroll = $1,000,000 x (1 + (2 * 0.90)) x (1 + (2 * 0.90)) = $7,840,000 Bankroll = $1,000,000 x (1 + (2 * 0.90)) x (1 – (1 * 0.90)) = $280,000 Bankroll = $1,000,000 x (1 – (1 * 0.90)) x (1 + (2 * 0.90)) = $280,000 Bankroll = $1,000,000 x (1 – (1 * 0.90)) x (1 – (1 * 0.90)) = $10,000 Since each of the 4 outcomes is equally likely, that yields an EV of $2,102,500 or a profit of $1,102,500 (or 110.25%). However, the EG here is a loss of 74%! That means that although you would be making bets with higher expected value, you would end up with (significantly) worse expected growth. In fact, you now expect a significant shrink in the size of your portfolio (or bankroll). Extending this logic out further, if you were to go “all in” on every single bet even if the coin were weighted in a manner such that you win 99.999999999% of the time, the EG = -100% if you are allowed to flip the coin infinite many times despite the fact that your EV would be exploding to infinity. The math of investing isn’t as simple as winning and losing as in the case, I present above. You get to input distributions of possible results with probability distributions of those results. In the end, you get to the indisputable truth that BET SIZING MATTERS (portfolio allocation sizing matters). The math gets way more complicated than this and frankly, I don’t truly understand it yet. The key takeaways from this fun math end up being quite intuitive: The better the investment (in terms of expected return and likelihood of success), the greater the percentage of your portfolio that you should allocate to this investment. If you overbet (oh what a horrible screen name to have for this discussion) or underbet, you will not maximize your expected growth. If you underbet in a +EV situation, you still will expect to grow your portfolio. If you overbet in a +EV situation, expected growth of your portfolio can be positive or negative. The penalty of underbetting (in general) is less severe than the penalty of overbetting. While I think the guidelines Chris DeMuth lays out are not necessarily all that bad in practice, I would caution taking an overly simplistic approach to a (very) complex problem.

VHDYX: Fantastic Equity Mutual Fund For Long Term Investing

Summary VHDYX has great sector exposure with a low expense ratio. Well created equity index for anyone planning for long term retirement. Fund is focused on a high dividend and invested in the large companies in the U.S. market. Saving for retirement can be a daunting task when choosing where to invest money. If the ability to save for the long haul is available use it to your advantage. Some portfolios may look too volatile and risky but time is often a great answer. The fund we will be looking at for long term investing is the Vanguard High Dividend Yield Index Fund Investor Shares (MUTF: VHDYX ). Expense Ratio The expense ratio for VHDYX is .18%, which looks great for a mutual fund. Diversification The following chart shows the top ten holdings and also gives a good idea of what we’re looking at in this fund: I would like to see an index with 436 stocks have less than 30% of its holdings in the top ten. That being said, I still like the broad range of sector exposure. The index does invest 98.94% into domestic companies. There are some global giants among the holdings so there will be some international exposure. I stress some because if international exposure is really important for a portfolio I don’t think this index will be enough. Great diversification here with no sector being over 15%. Technology and health care are the two equity sectors that I would look into investing more in. With the advancement and cost effectiveness of automating jobs I tend to favor having technology around 14%. Health care should be a strong sector with the rising age of the population for the next couple of decades. Beyond baby boomers, people are also living longer which is magnifying poor health habits. With a pure equity index I was glad to see telecommunications and basic materials so low. Telecommunications does have the ability for some serious upside but the problem is knowing where it will come from. Everyone wants to sell you their new phone. The competition is rising and causing the sector to really buckle down and intelligently decide what to do next. We have seen some major flops even by the telecommunication giants and now would be a bad time to fall behind. There are plenty of good arguments for who will come out on top but I’m sure we’re all in for a few surprises. With companies working on snazzy new features and trying to be the first one to market breaking technology it’s not a position I want to be heavily invested in. Risk Even though there are hundreds of stocks in this index it is still an equity fund. There is going to be quite a bit of volatility with the market and therefore a lot of risk on a short term basis and there is a chance that a handful of years could take rough swings. There is a high correlation between VHDYX and the S&P 500 and I would invest in them both the same way – long term. Below is a comparison with VHDYX and its benchmark: These returns do look good but I would not use this information to invest if I wanted to retire in five years and could not handle losses. There is the option of diversifying the risk to your liking but if it were me I would make sure I could invest for at least ten years. Yield The yield at 3.29% is what makes this index a winner for me. So many investors plan on a long term goal which involves taking some money out of their portfolio. Where many mistakes happen is watching an index drop and then deciding to pull their position. The high yield here allows you to invest and leave it alone for years while collecting dividends. Conclusion There is a lot to be positive about when looking at this mutual fund. There’s ten sectors to be diversified in and the amount allocated is well thought out. The high yield allows investors to put the money in the index and then leave it alone. The correlation to the S&P 500 should continue with the funds current holdings of only large U.S. companies. On the flip side there is some risk involved; especially if your goals aren’t long term. There is very little international exposure and almost 31% of the holdings in the top ten companies. I would like to see heavier weights for the smaller holdings while maintaining similar sector allocations. I’m heavily debating making it a part of my portfolio. I would want to invest with a long time horizon, such as 15 years, so that I could ride out any bumps in the economy while reinvesting dividends to grow the position