Tag Archives: feeds

What Is Bothering Global Financial ETFs?

The global financial sector has been under stress lately. The crash was mainly brought about by the European banks, which have shed a quarter of their market value so far this year and are running the risk of further losses. While the long-standing woes in the energy sector and the Chinese economy were already there to spoil the financial market sentiments, the latest sell-off in banking stocks was spurred by UBS Group AG’s (NYSE: UBS ) moderate earnings for the fourth quarter of 2015. The bank’s outlook was more worrisome as it indicated several macroeconomic headwinds and geopolitical issues that would bother operations in the near term. UBS talked about ” very low levels of client activity and pronounced risk aversion.” The bank reported 3.4 billion Swiss francs ($3.3 billion) of outflows from its wealth management division. All in all, fears of a broad-based global slowdown spooked investors, who rushed to dump banking stocks. This was because of the fact that a slowing global economy means reduced capital market activity, lower loan growth and high chances of credit default, especially from the energy sector. All these stirred speculation about a global banking sector meltdown. If this was not enough, negative interest rates have been playing foul in the European banking sector and may also leave a scar on the Japanese banking sector. Central banks of both regions are presently pursuing negative deposit rates. Such rock-bottom interest rates dent banks’ net interest margins. The apprehension was so quivering that “in its annual stress test for 2016, the Fed said it will assess the resilience of big banks to a number of possible situations, including one where the rate on the three-month U.S. Treasury bill stays below zero for a prolonged period,” per Bloomberg . In the stress test, banks need to tackle three-month bill rates going into the negative zone in the second quarter of 2016, then falling to negative 0.5% and finally staying there till the first quarter of 2019. Outflow from Financials ETFs The Bloomberg World Banks Index has lost over 16% year to date (as of February 9, 2016). As risks over the space are front and centre, investors are dumping financial ETFs at the fastest rate since 2010 . Global financial ETFs have seen assets worth $3.17 billion gushing out so far this quarter. As per Markit, global financial ETFs are on the way to record the “worst quarterly outflow in six years since the second quarter of 2010″. iShares Global Financials ETF (NYSEARCA: IXG ) The $212 million ETF holds 236 stocks in its portfolio. No stock accounts for more than 4.46% of the portfolio. Banking is the fund’s topmost priority, with about 46.5% focus, followed by insurance (20%) and diversified financials (19.4%). As far as geographical focus is concerned, the U.S. is the fund’s top sector, with about 47.4% exposure, while the UK (7.7%), Australia (7.2%), Japan (6.4%) and Canada (6.14%) also hold considerable exposure each. The fund charges 48 bps in fees and is down 17.1% so far this year (as of February 10, 2016). SPDR S&P International Financial Sector ETF (NYSEARCA: IPF ) IPF invests $6.4 million in assets in 199 stocks. Japan, the UK, Canada and Australia get double-digit weights in the fund. Banks (46.3%) and insurance (22.2%) have considerable weights in the fund. No stock accounts for more than 3.49% of the portfolio. It is off 20.2% so far this year (as of February 10, 2016). Bottom Line Having described the crisis, we would like to note that the fear of a 2008-like recession or financial market crash is less likely. The negative interest rates should boost capital market activities in the eurozone and Japan and benefit banks in other ways. As far as the U.S. is concerned, a negative interest rate is less likely to be a near-term option, though the Fed chief does not ” take those off the table .” The U.S. economy may be slowing from the end of 2015, but is not so feeble that it needs to undergo a negative interest rate policy at the current level. So, one can consider the recent sharp sell-off as more panic-induced, and banks’ stocks probably do not deserve such a beating as they are currently going through. Original Post

To Be (The Market) Or Not To Be?

Key highlights After significant losses by large-capitalization and growth stocks during the 2000-2002 bear market, investors have become increasingly interested in non-market-cap index-weighting strategies that intentionally divorce a security’s index weighting from its price. Such rules-based alternatives to market-cap-weighted indexes include strategies labeled alternative indexing, fundamental indexing or, more commonly used, smart beta. Vanguard believes strongly that, by definition, smart beta indexes should be considered rules-based active strategies because their methodologies tend to generate meaningful security-level deviations, or tracking error, compared with a broad market-cap index. Our research shows that such strategies’ “excess return” can be partly (and in some cases largely) explained by time-varying exposures to various risk factors, such as size and style. Place “the market” in front of a mirror and what would you see? A perfect reflection of that market-same size and shape, nothing added, nothing taken away. If you wanted the reflection to show something different from the market-something better?-you’d need to place something different in front of the mirror. That’s the puzzle of smart beta, whose providers often suggest that they’re “like the market,” only better. If you’re looking to get different returns from, for example, the U.K. stock market, “you have to look different in some way, shape, or form,” said Don Bennyhoff, senior investment analyst in Vanguard Investment Strategy Group. “The first thing smart beta providers do is modify what the market looks like, based on their own active choices and biases.” Recent research by Bennyhoff and his colleagues Christopher Philips, Fran Kinniry, Todd Schlanger, and Paul Chin found that the rules-based methodologies employed by alternatives to market-cap-weighted indexes tend to generate meaningful tracking error compared with broad market-cap indexes. The methodologies may weight securities differently from their market-cap weighting. Or they may exclude securities that feature in a benchmark and include securities that aren’t part of the benchmark. “In our opinion,” Bennyhoff said, “these rules-based strategies are active, which means they’re not asset-class beta or ‘the market’ in the traditional sense.” The sources of outperformance “These strategies tend to result in portfolios that emphasize smaller-cap or value stocks, which have performed very well since the early 2000s,” Bennyhoff said. “So the question is, ‘Are these higher returns the result of higher risks?’ There is rigorous debate about that topic. But when we look at risk-adjusted returns, the excess return tends to go away, and maybe that’s a meaningful finding.” Moreover, as the figure below shows, smart beta strategies’ exposures to risk factors change over time. Non-market-cap-weighted strategies’ exposures to risk factors are time-varying 60-month rolling style and size exposure of alternative index versus broad developed-equity market, 1999-2014 Source: Illustration by Vanguard, based on data from MSCI, FTSE, S&P Dow Jones Indices, and Thomson Reuters Datastream. Figure displays 60-month rolling inferred benchmark weights resulting from tracking error minimization for each index across size and style indexes. Factors are represented by the following benchmarks: fundamental-weighted-FTSE RAFI Developed 1000 Index; equal-weighted-MSCI World Equal Weighted Index; GDP-weighted-MSCI World GDP Weighted Index; minimum volatility-MSCI World Minimum Volatility Index; risk-weighted-MSCI World Risk Weighted Index; dividend-weighted-STOXX Global Select Dividend 100 Index. “We’re not saying that paying attention to factors or tilting on value or small-cap is necessarily a bad thing,” Bennyhoff said. “Whether they pay off in the future as they’ve paid off in the past remains to be seen. But instead of putting together a strategy where the factor exposure is a by-product of the weighting scheme or the security-selection scheme, maybe it should be the primary focus .” And if you’re looking to capture the risk and reward of an asset class, Bennyhoff says, “the only way you can reflect that aggregate capital invested in the asset class is through market-cap weighting.” Interested in an overview of smart beta and other rules-based active strategies? Read our research brief . Notes: All investing is subject to risk, including possible loss of the money you invest. Diversification does not ensure a profit or protect against a loss. There is no guarantee that any particular asset allocation or mix of funds will meet your investment objectives or provide you with a given level of income. Past performance is no guarantee of future returns. The performance of an index is not an exact representation of any particular investment, as you cannot invest directly in an index.

3 Top-Rated Pacific Mutual Funds To Invest In

The Pacific Basin countries constitute one of the world’s most diverse and economically vibrant regions. Among its inherent strengths are considerable technological capabilities and a growing pool of savings. Prominent centers of production and fast growing potential markets in this part of the world also ensure that it is an exciting investment destination. With a high degree of diversification between developed and developing markets, mutual funds from this sector present a healthy mix of growth opportunities and safety for capital invested. Below we share with you 3 top-ranked Pacific Mutual Funds. Each has earned a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #1 (Strong Buy) and is expected to outperform its peers in the future. Matthews Asia Growth Investor (MUTF: MPACX ) seeks capital growth over the long run. MPACX invests a major portion of its assets in stocks of Asian companies. MPACX primarily focuses on acquiring common and preferred stocks of companies. MPACX may also allocate a significant portion of its assets in convertible securities of companies irrespective of their quality and maturity period. Matthews Asia Growth Investor fund has a three-year annualized return of 1.5%. As of September 2015, MPACX held 69 issues with 3.92% of its total assets invested in Orix Corp. Matthews Korea Investor (MUTF: MAKOX ) invests a large chunk of its assets in common and preferred stocks of South Korean companies. MAKOX focuses on mid- to large-cap firms, but is not restricted to them. MAKOX seeks long-term capital appreciation. The Matthews Korea Investor fund is non-diversified and has a three-year annualized return of 6.1%. MAKOX has an expense ratio of 1.11% as compared to the category average of 1.86%. Fidelity Pacific Basin (MUTF: FPBFX ) seeks long-term growth of capital. FPBFX invests a major portion of its assets in securities of issuers located in or economically tied to the Pacific Basin. FPBFX primarily focuses on acquiring common stocks of companies located across a wide range of Pacific Basin countries. Factors such as financial strength and economic conditions are considered before investing in a company. The Fidelity Pacific Basin fund has a three-year annualized return of 5%. John Dance is the fund manager of FPBFX since Oct. 2013. Original Post