Tag Archives: handle

Top ETF Stories Of 2014 Worth Watching In 2015

The stock market across the globe has given mixed performances in 2014. While the Dow Jones Industrial Average crossed the 18,000 mark for the first time in mid December and the S&P 500 is on the verge of crossing the 2,100 level on the back of an accelerating job market and improving economic fundamentals, a number of international economies have either slipped into recession or are struggling to reignite growth. In particular, several events will likely spill over into 2015 and continue to impact the ETF world either in a positive or a negative way. Below, we have highlighted some of these events, which will hog investor attention in the New Year: Oil/Energy ETFs The broad energy space hit headlines all year round as oil price jumped to a fresh high in mid June and then took a reverse turn slipping to a multi-year low in December. While geopolitical tensions in Russia and insurgency in Iraq propelled the oil prices and the energy ETFs higher in the first half of the year, rising U.S. shale oil production, abundant supply, slowing global demand, no cut in OPEC output, and a strong dollar pushed them to lower levels in recent months. Whether the bear will continue to chase the energy space or will it turn around in 2015? This is THE question everywhere in the world. However, oil price is showing some strength in today’s trading session on concerns over the Libyan supply disruption. As a result, investors should definitely keep a close eye on ETFs that will largely be impacted by this development. In particular, the First Trust ISE-Revere Natural Gas Index Fund (FCG ) , SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF (NYSEARCA: XOP ) , Market Vectors Oil Services ETF (NYSEARCA: OIH ) , United States Oil Fund (NYSEARCA: USO ) and United States Brent Oil Fund (NYSEARCA: BNO ) are some of the funds that could see huge volatility. FCG, having a Zacks ETF Rank of 5 or ‘Strong Sell’ rating, has stolen the show this year, plunging 41.2% while XOP and OIH lost about 28% and 24.2%, respectively and have a Zacks ETF Rank of 4 or ‘Sell’ rating. The future-based oil ETFs – BNO and USO – declined 47.8% and 41.7%, respectively. Russia ETFs Russian ETFs have seen horrendous trading this year thanks to several rounds of Western sanctions imposed on the country for invading Ukraine and the oil price collapse. The Russian ruble also saw a terrible decline against the greenback, losing about 50% since June. To combat the slide in the currency and reinvigorate growth, the Russian central bank has taken various measures. While direct currency intervention, minor rate hikes, and tightening supplies of the ruble did not bear any fruit, the central bank took a bold step this month by raising key interest rates rate from 10.5% to 17%, representing the steepest one-time hike in 16 years. The ruble has recovered slightly after the move but Russian economic growth still remains gloomy due to limited opportunities for investment, declining oil prices, rising inflation, weak deposit growth, soft earnings, falling consumer confidence and lack of growth drivers. Given this, Russia ETFs remained in investors’ eyes in the emerging/European market space in 2015. There are currently four non-leveraged ETFs targeting the Russian stocks – the Market Vectors Russia ETF (NYSEARCA: RSX ) , iShares MSCI Russia Capped ETF (NYSEARCA: ERUS ) , Market Vectors Russia Small-Cap ETF (NYSEARCA: RSXJ ) , and SPDR S&P Russia (NYSEARCA: RBL ) . All the products currently have a Zacks ETF Rank of 5 and are down in the range of 40-50% this year. U.S. Treasury ETFs While short-term Treasury ETFs have stayed almost flat this year, long-term products are leading the space. This trend is unlikely to continue next year as the Fed is on track to raise interest rates given a strengthening U.S. economy. Some market experts expect the first interest rate hike since 2006 sooner than expected in mid 2015, resulting in aggressive higher yields since 2009. According to the Wall Street message , 2015 would be disastrous for U.S. government bonds. In fact, the short end of the yield curve is rising faster than the long end and the spread between the 5-year and 30-year yields tightened to 109 bps from 220 bps at the start of the year, indicating that the yield curve is plateauing. As such, investors should take great precaution while trading in government bonds in the coming months. The three most popular Treasury funds – iShares 1-3 Year Treasury Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: SHY ) , iShares 7-10 Year Treasury Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: IEF ) and iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: TLT ) are up 0%, 6.20%, and 22.14%, respectively. All these products have a Zacks ETF Rank of 3 or ‘Hold’ rating. SHY targets short end of the yield curve while IEF and TLT focus on mid-term and long-term government bonds, respectively. Bottom Line Investors should closely watch the developments in these spaces as we head into the next year and should tap opportunities as and when they come.

Latest Low Carbon ETF Sees Huge Popularity Out Of The Gate

The ETF world is becoming increasingly competitive as issuers continue to line up new products to entice investors. While most try to please investors by charging low expense ratios, others have even attempted product charging a zero percent management fee. In this cutthroat competitive world, iShares has recently launched a product based on the low carbon emission idea. The newly launched iShares MSCI ACWI Low Carbon Target ETF (NYSEARCA: CRBN ) comes close on the heels of the recently launched SPDR MSCI ACWI Low Carbon Target ETF (NYSEARCA: LOWC ) by State Street. Though the two new funds are hardly distinguishable from each other and both look to provide exposure to companies with lower carbon and greenhouse gas emissions, below we have highlighted some of the details of the latest product on the block. CRBN in Focus The newly launched ETF tracks the MSCI ACWI Low Carbon Target Index to provide exposure to developed and emerging market equities with a lower carbon exposure than that of the broad market. For this purpose, the index goes overweight in companies with low carbon emissions relative to sales and per dollar of market capitalization. Also, the index supports companies that are less dependent on fossil fuels. This strategy results in the fund holding a well-diversified basket of 956 stocks. Apple occupies the top position with 1.82% exposure, followed by Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT ) (1.04%) and Johnson and Johnson (NYSE: JNJ ) (0.87%). Sector-wise, Financials dominates the fund with a little less than one-fourth exposure, followed by Information Technology with 13.7% allocation and Industrials with 11.7% exposure. Geographically, the U.S. takes the biggest chunk with half of the assets invested in it. This is followed by Japan (7.5%), U.K. (6.6%) and Canada (3.5%). The fund charges 20 bps in fees, including waivers. How Does it Fit in a Portfolio? The fund is a great choice for long-term investors, especially institutions looking to invest in a way that can have a positive impact on the broader economy. The impact of climate change worldwide and the detrimental consequences of the presence of greenhouse gases in the environment have become an important topic of discussion lately. People these days are more focused on socially responsible investing and the new fund is a good platform for them to do so. ETF Competition Though the socially responsible investing space has a lot of funds focusing on companies that are socially accountable, the focus on funds targeting low carbon emission companies is still quite low. However, the iPath Global Carbon ETN (NYSEARCA: GRN ) is one such product which focuses on this space. The fund tracks the Barclays Capital Global Carbon Index Total Return, which measures the performance of the most highly traded carbon-related credit plans. The ETN is, however, quite unpopular and illiquid with an asset base of under $3 million and an average volume of 4,000 shares a day. The product is also quite expensive as compared with the newly launched product and charges 75 basis points as fees. Apart from GRN, the newly launched CRBN is likely to face competition from another recently launched fund by State Street’s LOWC, as it also tracks the same index and charges the same fees. With that being said, CRBN has already established its popularity in just a few days of its launch and is presently the most successful ETF launch, by assets, since October, as per research firm XTF . CRBN has gathered roughly $137.8 million in assets since its inception on December 8 this month, while LOWC has managed to garner $71.13 million after its launch on November 25. This clearly indicates that CRBN is already winning in terms of popularity and might have great days ahead as well.

Should You Look For Value In Cash Flows?

Most deep-value investors look at the balance sheet and P/E multiples when they are hunting for bargains, a strategy taught by the godfather of value investing, Benjamin Graham . However, what strategies like these fail to take into account is cash flow. Glen Greenberg and Donald Yacktman are two respected value investors, both of whom invest not just with asset value in mind but also cash flows. This strategy has yielded results. Greenberg’s fund, Chieftain Capital Management achieved a compounded annual growth rate of 25% from 1984 through 2000, the S&P 500 achieved a return over 16% over the same period. Annual returns through 2010 were 18%. Greenberg uses a DCF model to make his investments but rather than the traditional DCF method, in the style of Graham, Greenberg looks for a margin of safety before investing. This margin of safety is a hurdle/discount rate of 20% for all potential investments when computing the DCF. The rate was lowered to 15% in order to reflect the interest rate environment. (click to enlarge) Adjusted cash flows Meanwhile, Yacktman uses an adjusted cash flow figure to value securities. Yacktman equates the forward rate of return with a company’s free-cash yield . He calculates this yield by computing the FCF, then adds in the cash he believes the business can generate through growth and adjusts for the effect of inflation. That figure is then divided by the stock price. Using this adjusted cash flow figure, Yacktman compares the stock’s forward rate of return with yields on long-term Treasuries. The wider the spread, the deeper the discount and the more attractive the stock is to Yacktman. DCF valuations for forecasting free cash flows: Not clear cut The use of a DCF valuation places less reliance on current market valuations. Instead, it emphasizes the full-information forecasting of free cash flows over a multi-period finite horizon. In comparison, PE models are dependent upon the fact that current earnings measures are good proxies for value, placing emphasis on current, not future value. Moreover, DCF calculations allow for the choice of an appropriate finite horizon, estimation of growth beyond the horizon, and in its standard implementation, estimation of an appropriate WACC and of the value of non-equity claims on the firm. In other words, the valuation is more comprehensive and provides a long-term valuation of the company that it not dependent upon wider market valuations. That being said, there is some evidence to suggest that price targets calculated using a P/E multiple, are more accurate that price targets computed using a DCF analysis. A study entitled “ Does valuation model choice affect target price accuracy? ” found that DCF models are used to justify higher price targets by optimistic analysts. Additionally, a study entitled, Valuation Accuracy and Infinity Horizon Forecast: Empirical Evidence from Europe , published within the Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting 20:2 2009, found that when calculating a DCF forecast, analysis’ tend to factor in an “ideal” long-term growth rate, which is just above the WACC: …Therefore, using this ‘‘ideal’’ growth rate leads to the determination of ‘‘ideal’’ Target Corporation (NYSE: TGT ) prices that respect the long-term steady-state assumptions… Therefore, it’s easy to conclude that if a DCF figure is used to calculate a price target, or identify value opportunities , a suitable, conservative set of figures should be used to compute the DCF in order to prevent optimistic forecasting. Disclosure : None.