Tag Archives: events

The Double Edged Sword Of Trend Following ETFs

I’ve always been a big proponent of following the major trends in the market to serve as guideposts for sizing the stock allocation of my portfolio . Trend lines like the infamous 200-day moving average have never been a perfect predictor of stock market direction. However, using these types of technical indicators can serve as a useful tool for making incremental adjustments over time. Pacer ETFs is a relatively upstart company in the exchange-traded fund world that operates a suite of TrendPilot ETFs designed to automate the trend following process. Their lineup includes a range of well-known U.S. and European indexes with several hundred million in combined assets under management. The largest and most popular fund in their mix is the Pacer TrendPilot 750 ETF (BATS: PTLC ), which is based on the Wilshire U.S. Large-Cap Index. This includes a diversified basket of 750 large-cap stocks that aims for broader exposure than the stalwart S&P 500 Index. PTLC currently has $336 million in total assets and enough consistent daily trading volume to be considered liquid for most investor’s purposes. It also charges an expense ratio of 0.60%, which is on the high side for a typical ETF but not necessarily abnormal for a quasi-active approach. The basic premise behind PTLC is to participate when the stock market is going up and move to cash (or treasury bills) when it is going down. They accomplish this through a systemic, rules-based methodology that indicates when a positive or negative trend is established using the 200-day simple moving average. In an uptrend, PTLC owns 100% stocks. The fund then moves to 50% stocks and 50% treasury bills when the index falls below the trend line for five consecutive days. It then uses a final confirming indicator to move to 100% treasury bills if the simple moving average falls lower than its prior reading for five days. The process starts over again once the index regains its 200-day moving average on the upside. Simple. Logical. Automated. Sounds easy right? The obvious advantage of this strategy is that it is designed to keep your money safe during a prolonged bear market such as we experienced in 2008. Multiple months or even years of persistent selling pressure can be avoided by having your capital protected near the top quartile of a new down cycle. The goal is also to get you back into the market at a much lower point and with more starting capital than if you had held your way through on the downside. However, this trend following system also becomes a hindrance during periods of sharp corrections and subsequent rapid recoveries like we have experienced over the last year. The constant gyration from bullish to bearish momentum and back again creates a counter-productive effect on the strategy. When comparing PTLC versus the Schwab U.S. Large-Cap ETF (NYSEARCA: SCHX ) since inception, you can see how the trend following strategy moves to cash prior to the upswing in both 2015 and 2016. This means that you miss out on the recovery phase and end up rapidly falling behind the more conventional index. SCHX purely follows the Wilshire U.S. Large-Cap Index without the trend following component. The time period involved here is admittedly quite short and a proper analysis should be done over multiple cycles of the market. Nevertheless, it should be observed that this recent trading pattern does not sit well with a trend following strategy built to follow a long-term moving average . It may also result in some investors becoming frustrated with the timing component and jumping ship just prior to the market rolling over once again. The trend following ETF is ultimately doing exactly what its creators set out for it to do. The more recent price action should be considered a known risk of this type of enhanced index rather than a failure of the strategy altogether. The lesson is that there is always a double edged sword of opportunity cost that must be considered when you move to the safety of cash. This same risk is entrenched with the use of stop losses or physical sell orders for individual ETFs and stocks as well. They call it getting “whipsawed” and it is certainly an uncomfortable feeling when you are on the wrong end of it. 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. Additional disclosure: David Fabian, FMD Capital Management, and/or clients may hold positions in the ETFs and mutual funds mentioned above. The commentary does not constitute individualized investment advice. The opinions offered herein are not personalized recommendations to buy, sell, or hold securities.

ETF Update: Smart Beta Launches As Far As The Eye Can See

Welcome back to the SA ETF Update. My goal is to keep Seeking Alpha readers up to date on the ETF universe and to gain some visibility, both for the ETF community and for me as its editor (so users know who to approach with issues, article ideas, to become a contributor, etc.). Every other week (depending on the reader response and submission volumes) we will highlight fund launches and closures for the week, as well as any news items that could impact ETF investors. As you might have noticed from the title, smart beta funds were on my mind this week. This might have something to do with the last 8 launches falling into that self-proclaimed category. It might also be due to a great read from Abnormal Returns, ” Finance blogger wisdom: smart beta bubble? ” In the linked article the author presented the following question to his online peers: The ‘smart beta’ or factor-investing bubble seems to be in full bloom. Is ‘smart beta’ simply the new active investing? If so, what happens to the entire fund industry which was built on the high fees associated with active management? This is a question that many have also covered on Seeking Alpha, but the most recent example is from Benjamin Lavine, CFA , whose article was posted on Wednesday (3/30). I would highly recommend it for any readers wondering what is behind the smart beta trend and how to interpret the term when considering an investment. With that disclaimer aside, let’s jump into the most recent round of smart beta launches: Fund launches for the week of March 21st, 2016 Principal expands into smart beta (3/22): The Principal Price Setters Index ETF (NASDAQ: PSET ) and the Principal Shareholder Yield Index ETF (NASDAQ: PY ) are the first smart beta launches from Principal Funds; both target mid- and large-cap domestic firms. However, PSET “focuses on companies with sustainable pricing power, consistent sales growth, high/stable margins, quality earnings, low leverage, and high levels of profitability,” while PY is for investors more concerned with “sustainable shareholder yield, strong cash flow generation, and capacity to increase dividends and/or buybacks.” Both funds are a relatively large departure from the Principal EDGE Active Income ETF (NYSEARCA: YLD ), which was launched in July 2015. This first venture into ETFs is an active fund investing across multiple income-producing asset classes in search of high-income investments. Victory Capital Management rolls out an emerging market fund (3/23): The Victory CEMP Emerging Market Volatility Wtd Index ETF (NASDAQ: CEZ ) was the third smart beta launch of the week. The in-house CEMP Emerging Market 500 Volatility Weighted Index “combines fundamental criteria with volatility weighting to seek to improve an investor’s ability to outperform traditional indexing strategies.” It is worth noting that the top countries represented at this time are Taiwan, China, South Korea and India; all of which are still considered emerging by MSCI , but many have argued that they are quickly evolving out of the traditional definition. Fund launches for the week of March 28th, 2016 Fund closures for the weeks of March 21st and 28th, 2016 Direxion Value Line Conservative Equity ETF (NYSEARCA: VLLV ) Direxion Value Line Mid- and Large-Cap High Dividend ETF (NYSEARCA: VLML ) Direxion Value Line Small- and Mid-Cap High Dividend ETF (NYSEARCA: VLSM ) ALPS Sector Leaders ETF (NYSEARCA: SLDR ) ALPS Sector Low Volatility ETF (NYSEARCA: SLOW ) ALPS STOXX Europe 600 ETF (NYSEARCA: STXX ) Global Commodity Equity ETF (NYSEARCA: CRBQ ) iSharesBond 2016 Corporate Term ETF (NYSEARCA: IBDA ) iSharesBond 2016 Corporate ex-Financials Term ETF (NYSEARCA: IBCB ) Have any other questions on ETFs or ETNs? Please comment below and I will try to clear things up. As an author and editor, I have found that constructive feedback is the best way to grow. What you would like to see discussed in the future? How can I improve this series to meet reader needs? Please share your thoughts on this first edition of the ETF Update series in the comments section below. Have a view on something that’s coming up or a new fund? Submit an article. 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.

In Which I Answer A Question About The Volatility ETNs

The prevailing wisdom on the volatility ETNs, VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX Short-Term ETN (NASDAQ: XIV ) and iPath S&P 500 VIX ST Futures ETN (NYSEARCA: VXX ), is that XIV will rise over time and VXX will fall as long as the term structure is in contango more often than it’s in backwardation. A recently elapsed period, slightly longer than a year, makes apparent that’s not the case. Over the period from 2-Mar-2015 to 18-Mar-2015, both XIV and VXX experienced substantial net losses. VXX declined -27.5%, while XIV declined -29.9% (Figures 1 and 2). Figure 1. XIV prices Figure 2. VXX prices This loss for both ETNs over a prolonged period occurred while the term structure was in contango 73% of the time – 2.7X more often than it was in backwardation, as Figure 3 shows below. Why is that? Click to enlarge Figure 3. Percent Contango from 2-Mar-2015 to 18-Mar-2016 One way to answer this question is by reference to variance drain. I picked the period 2-Mar-2015 to 18-Mar-2015 for illustration purposes in this article because it happens that the average of percent daily returns over this period is very close to zero for both ETNs. You can see that in Figure 4 below, which shows running totals for the percent daily returns for the indexes of both ETNs. Running totals for each end at zero, which of course means that the average percent daily return was also zero. Click to enlarge Figure 4. Running total of daily percent changes. The concept of variance drain was introduced by Tom Messmore in the context of comparing investment advisors based on average yearly percent returns. In brief, average periodic returns is a mathematically incorrect basis for comparison, since percentage gains accrue multiplicatively, not additively. This is best explained by example. Suppose you invest $100 in asset X. On Day 1, its market value falls by 25%. However, on Day 2, it rises by 25%. The average daily rate of return is (-25% + 25%)/2 = 0%. But your investment has not returned to its original value. Instead, it is now worth: $100*(1-0.25)*(1+0.25) = $93.75 A 6.25% loss. Since multiplication is commutative, order doesn’t matter. Investment Y that performs inversely to investment X, gaining 25% on Day 1, then losing 25% on Day 2 will also lose 6.25%. In general, this can be expressed as: I 0 *(1-α)*(1+α) = I 0 -α 2 , where I 0 is the initial investment. Clearly, the larger α is, the greater the net loss. Note that variance drain is not an actual loss. There’s no counterparty to variance drain. Nor is it a frictional drag in the sense that fees or leverage cost are. Rather it’s a demonstration that average periodic returns do not represent longer-term returns over multiple periods. In the case of the volatility ETNs XIV and VXX, the inverse relationship of their daily percent returns simply does not carry over to longer time periods, except by chance. What this means is that the question of why both XIV and VXX lost value, which several readers have raised in the comment sections of recently published articles on the volatility ETNs, is only a question if one starts from an incorrect assumption – namely that XIV and VXX are inversely correlated over time periods longer than one day. Since they’re not, both may lose value over time. Additionally, during time periods longer than one day when one loses as the other gains, those changes should not be expected to be equal and opposite. It’s also worth noting that excess of contango during this approximately one-year period did not result in XIV gaining value. On the contrary, it lost a substantial amount of its prior value. I’d like to encourage those who trade these ETNs to be certain the risks are well understood. Among those risks is the risk of placing too much faith in axioms and strategies that were formed during a period when the VIX was generally calm and declining. They may not apply during prolonged periods when the VIX is rising or is more frequently spiking. Disclosure: I am/we are long XIV. 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. Additional disclosure: I may initiate or close a long or short position in any of the volatility ETNs over the next 72 hours.