Tag Archives: feeds

How To Destroy Your Net Net Stock Portfolio

Are you tired of building wealth? Would you rather watch your money burn? One of Canada’s leading newspapers came out in 2013 with a list of net net stocks that it expected would produce amazing returns. Author Robert Tattersall, co-founder of the Saxon family of mutual funds, looked back in time and put together a basket of net nets trading on the Canadian markets at the start of 2012. His strategy was simple: a basket of Canadian net nets, 21 to be exact, trading at no more than a 20% premium to NCAV, with no additional filtering. Over 2012 the stocks would have performed very well, recording an 18% gain versus the TSX’s 4% return. That result is on par with the returns of net net stocks generally. Over 2013, however, returns began to sour. Rather than the market crushing performance of the previous year, Tattersall’s basket of net nets actually underperformed the market, returning just 2% compared to the market’s 7.2% return. What Went Wrong? Part of the problem was the holding period. Net nets show their best yearly performance as a group over a 1 year holding period but then perform worse the longer you hold onto the stocks. Over a two year period, a net net stock’s CAGR drops in a meaningful way. Over a 3 year holding period, results are even lower. Returns decrease step by step until in year 5 a lot of the advantage of owning a basket of net net stocks is destroyed. If you want to run a net net stock portfolio, annual rebalancing is a must. But holding period length is not the only thing potential net net stock investors should keep in mind, and it wouldn’t have been responsible for the large drop in performance his portfolio saw. There is a fair amount of variance in portfolio returns, after all. But, astute readers will notice two other fatal flaws. It’s no secret that net nets perform spectacularly when you stick to the strategy over a long period of time. Not all net nets perform the same. I crafted my Core7 Scorecard to help identify the net nets that have a better chance of outperforming net nets in general and help avoid firms that will disappoint. While it’s impossible to avoid every firm that will produce a loss or ensure that all the highest returning net nets are in your portfolio, it does a good job of stacking the odds in your favor. One of the key requirements in my scorecard is avoiding Chinese net nets and resource exploration companies. China has become famous in the West for its spectacular growth, but it’s also developed a bit of a reputation for offering up western market listed firms that are nothing more than frauds. These companies over-inflate their Balance Sheet figures, record assets they don’t actually have, and even tally up growth in revenue or earnings that just didn’t happen. Understandably, these companies don’t make for the best net nets. After all, if you’re going to be basing your investment decisions on Balance Sheet figures, it’s usually best to stick to firms you have reasonable grounds to assume are producing accurate financial statements. Resource exploration firms are a whole other can of worms. While they may have more accurate financial statements (i.e. they’re less likely to be outright frauds), these companies have a long history of destroying shareholder wealth. They start with a public offering of stock and then spend the money trying to find resources to harvest. This process can take years, if they find anything at all, and the entire time the company keeps draining its bank account. Most companies never actually find a deposit, but do a very good job of eroding shareholder value. 9 Net Nets for 2014? Maybe? These facts aren’t exactly a secret on the Street, so it’s interesting that David Sandel of Simcoe Partners would choose to include Chinese reverse merger and resource exploration firms in his followup portfolio for 2014. Just like Tattersall’s 2012/2013 portfolio, Sandel picked a basket of net nets that he suggested investors purchase for 2014: Automodular Corp. ( OTCPK:AMZKF ) -10.16% Monument Mining Ltd. (MMTF) -41.17% Energold Drilling Corp. ( OTCPK:EGDFF ) -50% Indigo Books & Music Inc. ( OTC:IDGBF ) +46.25% Greenstar Agricultural Corp. (GRCGF) -51.17% Goodfellow Inc. ( OTC:GFELF ) +5.73% Mirasol Resources Ltd. ( OTCPK:MRZLF ) +20.44% ACE Aviation Holdings Inc. ( OTC:ACAVF ) 0% Coopers Park Corp. ( OTC:CJPKF ) +43.93% All 9 net nets were still listed on Google Finance 12 months. If equally weighted, the portfolio would have produced a loss of -4.02%. A quick look at the firms is instructive. Of the firms selected, 3 were resource exploration firms (Monument, Energold, Mirasol) and one was actually a Chinese firm (Greenstar). The return to this group of 4 stocks was an average loss of -24.38%. If investors had skipped over the resource exploration and Chinese firms, they would have enjoyed a much more rewarding +17.15% return versus the TSX’s +6.23% gain. Not exactly statistically significant, but illustrative. Wise Stock Selection for the Best Returns At this point, astute readers will point out that these exploration firms were purchased right before a big drop in commodity prices generally. That’s a fair point, and one more reason to avoid resource firms altogether unless purchased in the depths of a serious bear market. While retail and industrial firms can turn themselves around with effort, planning, and decent judgement, the fate of resource firms are more or less wedded to commodity prices. Net nets don’t work out every year, and not every company will see positive returns. Seeing losses from time to time comes with the territory when buying net nets. Still, despite the occasional loss, net nets produce better returns over the long run than any other value strategy. Returns are consistently above a 25% CAGR in academic studies and my own portfolio has done very well. You shouldn’t just buy any net net, however. Some net nets have a much greater chance of suffering large losses; while other net nets have characteristics associated with outsized returns. Most of my net nets are debt free, have been growing NCAV, are increasing earnings, were bought with a PE below 10x (less than half the market PE!) and at an average discount to NCAV of 55%. If you want to make the most of your net net stock investing, you really have to group the best possible stocks into your portfolio. Why would you do anything else? 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. Editor’s Note: This article covers one or more stocks trading at less than $1 per share and/or with less than a $100 million market cap. Please be aware of the risks associated with these stocks.

4 Mutual Funds Rookies To Outperform Older Peers

According to the research paper “Scale and Skill in Active Management” by professors Robert Stambaugh and Luke Taylor, younger actively managed mutual funds outperform the older ones in a defined time frame. The path-breaking study, published last year in the Journal of Financial Economics, also indicated that returns of funds decline as they grow older. The professors cited an increase in the size of active management industry and the entry of new competitors as the main reasons behind their findings. Taylor said, “If there are more people fishing in the same pond, that’s going to make it harder for any individual person to catch a fish.” Actively managed funds tend to invest in securities that are believed to be undervalued relative to their fundamentals and try to outperform broader indexes. In order to pursue this objective, asset management companies seek to employ active managers who utilize their forecasting power and judgement to decide on buying, selling or holding securities. As a result, portfolio compositions of these funds are believed to vary according to market conditions. This makes the study an interesting reference when the performance of the younger funds is compared to the older ones. It will be interesting to see which category helps investors to achieve their objectives. Younger Versus Older Funds Out of the mutual funds we studied, funds that were incepted on or after 2010 have been considered as younger funds and those incepted on or before 2005 have been categorized as the older ones. In order to analyze the performances of younger mutual funds compared to the older ones, we have selected the top 100 funds from each category on the basis of their performance since inception. While the load-adjusted average total return of 100 younger funds since their inceptions outpaced the same average of the top 100 older funds, the former also outperformed their older peers in recent years. Load-adjusted average total return since inception of the top younger funds came in at 18% against 13.5% of the top older funds. Moreover, the younger category registered an average total return of 17.7% in the last three-year period compared to 16.4% gain witnessed by the older ones. Last year too, when most of the mutual funds found it difficult to finish in the positive territory, the top younger funds managed to post an average gain of 4.4%, clearly outpacing the average return of only 2% registered by the top older ones. Before concluding that the younger funds may prove to be more profitable than the older funds, as the facts indicate above, let’s have a look at some of the arguments given by professors Robert Stambaugh and Luke Taylor in their paper. Arguments in Favor Both Stambaugh and Taylor identified younger managers’ improving skills and ability to use advanced technology for forecasting as the main reasons for the outperformance of younger active funds. They argued that with gaining popularity of mutual funds over the years, level and quality of training has increased over time. Betterment of training helped new fund managers to gain exposure to higher education, advanced technology and research tools, which in turn had a positive impact on the performance. To quote Taylor, “New funds entering the industry have more skill … possibly because of better education or a better grasp on technology.” Moreover, younger active funds that come with new strategies, never explored earlier, may attract more investor attention than the older funds. Separately, Taylor identified that the performance of a fund tends to decline with time as the industry size increases. With time, the number of competitors and size of individual funds are bound to grow. With increasing size, trading volume of the funds also tend to rise, which weighs on a fund’s performance. In order to improve performance, the fund manager needs to increase exposure to undervalued stocks. This involves identifying stocks which are incorrectly priced relative to their intrinsic value and picking potential sellers of the same. This will force the fund to offer a higher price for the stock if it is to be purchased immediately. Otherwise, the fund may wait for a longer period of time, which may result in the loss of some of the incentives of undervalued stocks. 4 Young Mutual Funds To Consider Based on these facts, we present four mutual funds that were incepted in 2010 or later and carry either a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #1 (Strong Buy) or #2 (Buy). We believe these funds will outperform their peers in the next few years. Remember, the goal of the Zacks Mutual Fund Rank is to guide investors to identify the potential winners and losers. Unlike most of the fund-rating systems, the Zacks Mutual Fund Rank is not just focused on past performance, but also on the likely future success of the fund. Along with impressive returns since their inceptions, these funds also have encouraging one- and three-year total returns (as of December 31, 2015). The minimum initial investment is within $5,000. These funds also have a low expense ratio and no sales load. Fidelity Series Real Estate Equity Fund (MUTF: FREDX ) seeks high income and capital appreciation. FREDX invests the majority of its assets in companies associated with the real estate industry across the world. The fund is expected to provide a higher return than that of the S&P 500 Index. FREDX was incepted in October 20, 2011. Since its inception, this Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) fund has returned 12.7% and gained 3.6% and 12.7% over the past one- and three-year periods, respectively. FREDX has an annual expense ratio of 0.74%, significantly lower than the category average of 1.29%. It has no minimum initial investment. MFS International New Discovery Fund Retirement (MUTF: MIDLX ) invests in non-US equity securities, which also include equity securities of companies located in emerging nations. MIDLX invests in securities such as common stocks, preferred stocks and REITs. It invests in securities of companies that are believed to have impressive growth prospects. The fund may allocate a significant portion of its assets in a specific country or region. It was incepted in June 1, 2012. Since its inception, this Zacks Rank #1 fund has returned 9.2% and gained 2.9% and 6.3% over the past one- and three-year periods, respectively. MIDLX has an annual expense ratio of 0.95%, below the category average of 1.53%. It has no minimum initial investment. Thornburg International Value Fund Retirement (MUTF: TGIRX ) seeks growth of capital over the long run. It primarily focuses on acquiring securities of foreign companies and depository receipts. Though TGIRX invests in securities of companies located in both developed and developing nations, it invests a larger share of its assets in securities from developed markets compared to those from the developing markets. The fund was incepted in May 1, 2012. Since its inception, this Zacks Rank #2 (Buy) fund has returned 9% and gained 6.8% and 5.4% over the past one- and three-year periods, respectively. TGIRX has an annual expense ratio of 0.74%, lower than the category average of 1.34%. It has no minimum initial investment. Strategic Advisers Growth Fund (MUTF: FSGFX ) generally invests in Fidelity Funds and non-affiliated funds that take part in Fidelity’s FundsNetwork. FSGFX also invests in non-affiliated ETFs. It invests in large-cap companies having market capitalization within the universe of the Russell 1000 Growth Index. FSGFX was incepted in June 2, 2010. Since its inception, this Zacks Rank #2 fund has returned 16% and gained 5.1% and 16.7% over the past one- and three-year periods, respectively. FSGFX has an annual expense ratio of 0.31%, below the category average of 1.18%. It has no minimum initial investment. Original post

5 Market-Beating International ETFs YTD

The worries that cropped up last year intensified with the start of this year, leading to brutal trading in stocks across the globe. This is especially true as the Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US ETF (NYSEARCA: VEU ) targeting the international equity market has lost about 5.8% from a year-to-date look compared to a loss of 5.5% for iShares MSCI ACWI Index ETF (NASDAQ: ACWI ), which targets the global stock market including the U.S. In particular, the collapse in oil price to below the 12-year lows and persistent weakness in China are the major culprits of the woeful performance. Emerging markets have been struggling while developed markets are also exhibiting slow growth amid streaks of volatility and uncertainty. The U.S. economy has also started to feel the pain of an ongoing financial instability and global growth concerns given that GDP growth came to a standstill in 2015. Notably, the global stocks had wiped out nearly $7.8 trillion in value in the first three weeks of 2016. However, the stocks rebounded at the end of the fourth week following additional stimulus hopes from the European Central Bank (ECB) to print more money and cut interest rates further. Additionally, the Bank of Japan (BoJ) propelled the stocks higher by pushing its interest rates to a negative territory. Further, oil has also gained momentum reversing some of the losses incurred in the year (read: Japan ETFs to Buy on Negative Interest Rates ). While this is true, the positive sentiments proved to be short-lived and the global stocks again started another week on a sour note. In such a weak backdrop, most of the international markets and their ETFs have been able to fight through the bearish trend and have delivered handsome returns so far this year crushing the SPDR S&P 500 Trust ETF (NYSEARCA: SPY ) . Below we have highlighted some of them: iShares MSCI Indonesia Investable Market Index Fund (NYSEARCA: EIDO ) This is the most popular ETF tracking the Indonesian market with AUM of $252.4 million and average daily volume of more than 722,000 shares. The fund tracks the MSCI Indonesia Investable Market Index, holding 87 securities in its basket while charging 64 bps in annual fees from investors. The product is somewhat concentrated on both sectors and securities. The top two firms account for at least 11% of total assets each while from a sector look financials dominates the fund’s return with more than one-third share. Consumer discretionary, telecommunication services and consumer staples round off the next three spots with a double-digit exposure each. EIDO has added 3.6% so far this year and has a Zacks ETF Rank of 3 or ‘Hold’ rating with a High risk outlook (read: Believe in T Rowe Price? Invest in These EM ETFs ). iShares MSCI Thailand Capped ETF (NYSEARCA: THD ) The fund targets the Thailand equity market and tracks the MSCI Thailand IMI 25/50 Index. It has amassed nearly $218.2 million in its asset base and trades in good volume of 186,000 shares a day on average, probably ensuring no additional cost beyond the expense ratio of 0.64%. In total, the ETF holds 126 stocks, with each accounting for less than 7% share. It is somewhat concentrated from a sector perspective as financials comprises more than one-fourth of total assets while energy and industrials round off the next two spots with double-digit exposure each. The product is up 3.4% in the year-to-date timeframe and has a Zacks ETF Rank of 3 with a Medium risk outlook. iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF (NYSEARCA: EWM ) This ETF follows the MSCI Malaysia Index and has a targeted exposure to the Malaysian stock market. Holding 43 stocks in its basket, the fund is highly concentrated on the top three firms with at least 9% share each while the other firms hold no more than 5.7% of assets. Financials dominates the fund’s return at 30.3%, followed by industrials and utilities that make up for 14.8% share each. The fund has been able to manage assets worth $217.3 million and charges 47 bps in fees per year from investors. It is heavily traded with average daily volumes of 2.21 million shares. EWM has gained 3.4% this year so far and has a Zacks ETF Rank of 3 with a Medium risk outlook. iShares MSCI Chile Capped ETF (NYSEARCA: ECH ) This product provides exposure to 31 Chilean stocks by tracking the MSCI Chile IMI 25/50 Index. Here again, the top three firms dominate the portfolio with at least 8% share each while other firms account for less than 6.8% of assets. Further, about one-third of the portfolio is allotted toward utilities while financials and materials also receive double-digit exposure each. The ETF has accumulated $177.3 million in AUM and sees solid volume of more than 290,000 shares a day on average. Expense ratio came in at 0.64%. The fund is up 2.8% in the same period and has a Zacks ETF Rank of 3 with a Medium risk outlook. Deutsche X-trackers MSCI Mexico Hedged Equity ETF (NYSEARCA: DBMX ) This product offers exposure to the Mexican equity markets while at the same time hedges against any fall in the peso against the U.S. dollar by tracking the MSCI Mexico IMI 25/50 US Dollar Hedged Index. The fund holds 62 securities with the largest allocation to the top two firms that collectively make up for 22.9% of assets. From a sector look, consumer staples accounts for the largest share at 30.4% closely followed by financials (20.9%), telecom (14%) and industrials (13.2%). The fund has amassed $4.1 million in its asset base while trades in light volume of about 2,000 shares. It charges 50 bps in fees per year and has added 2.3% so far this year. DBMX has a Zacks Rank of 2 or ‘Buy’ rating with a Medium risk outlook. Link to the original post on Zacks.com