Tag Archives: income

How I Created My Portfolio Over A Lifetime – Part III (A)

Portfolio News Articles StockTalk Marketplace PRO Seeking Alpha WHERE DO YOU WANT TO GO? Seeking Alpha home page » My portfolio page » Latest Financial Analysis & Opinion » TOP NEWS Futures flat as globe rallies Mortgage applications dip again Shanghai surges 4.9% in last hour of trade Fiat Chrysler, UAW reach tentative labor deal HP Enterprise cutting 25K-30K jobs Microsoft hikes dividend by 16% Bloomberg: AMC in talks to acquire Starz network See latest news » TOP ARTICLES Top Authors   |      RSS Feeds   |  Sitemap   |  About Us   |  Contact Us Terms of Use | Privacy | Xignite quote data | © 2015 Seeking Alpha

PCI: High Yield (10.5%), Historic Discount (14.6%), But An Uneven Recent Record

Summary PCI is the largest CEF by market cap in the taxable income category. PCI is paying a distribution yield of 10.5% and is priced at a historically low discount. The fund has suffered along with its category over the past year. Investors might ask if there is now value here. I began this series exploring taxable income CEFs with an overview of 105 CEFs in this category where I showed that the funds had been battered by the market, often well in excess of changes in net asset values. Some funds had cut distributions and the broad data suggest that others may follow. I am following up on that overview with a look at specific funds in the category. First up was the PIMCO Dynamic Income Fund (NYSE: PDI ) which I consider to be the best in the class in today’s skewed market. With this installment, I want to look at its sibling fund, the PIMCO Dynamic Credit Income Fund (NYSE: PCI ), which like many siblings, is fundamentally similar but distinctly different. I refer to the two funds as siblings because they share a similar lineage. They are young funds (May 2012 for PDI, Jan 2013 2013 for PCI) and the most recent additions to the PIMCO CEF line. The funds have similar sounding objectives, but unlike many sibling funds, come have at their objectives quite differently although there are signs that they are coming be more alike as they weather tough times in their category. Where PDI stood out as being at or very near the upper reaches of the group for many key metrics, PCI does not fare nearly as well. This chart shows its percent rank among the funds for various market characteristics. (click to enlarge) Figure 1 . PCI percent rank among 105 taxable, fixed-income CEFs. Liquidity This is an area where PCI outscored PDI but only by minor amounts. It is the category leader for market cap and ranks 3rd of the 105 funds considered for trading volume. But either fund has as much liquidity as one is likely to find among closed end funds. Discount Discount is a second category where PCI turns in a better number than PDI, at least in terms of absolute value. Its discount (-14.64%) ranks 65 of the 105 funds which have a median discount of -13.2%. The fact that a fund can be that deep into discount territory and still be outpaced by 1//3 of the category’s funds shows how difficult times have been for taxable income CEFs. The discount/premium Z-scores show us that this discount is not only deep, it is much deeper than its average value has been over the last 3, 6 or 12 months. (click to enlarge) Figure 2 . PCI Z-Scores for PDI and median values for the category. The discount has been on an expanding trend since early in 2014. Indeed, at its current value, PCI’s discount is at an historic low for the fund. (click to enlarge) Figure 3 . PDI Premium/Discount since inception (end month values). Discounts are without question appealing, and historically low discounts can be especially appealing, but one does not — or, I should say, should not — buy a CEF on the basis of discount alone. Distributions Fixed income CEFs are designed to provide regular income to their shareholders. Most pay out a stable distribution and managers are generally reluctant to reduce those distribution. To a large extend investors value the funds on the basis of those distributions. Here again, PCI is turning in better numbers than PDI. Its distribution at NAV is 8.98% (75% percentile for the category), slightly above PDI’s 8.72%. Its deeper discount pushes the distribution to shareholders well above PDI’s. It is currently paying 10.52% on the basis of its regular distribution; PDI pays 9.53%. The regular distribution currently stands at $ 0.16406/share. It was increased for the September 2015 payment from $ 0.15625/share a value that had been constant from the fund’s inception. This is a 5% increase. PCI has also paid out a special distribution in each of its two years of operation. In 2013 it was $0.36 and for 2014 it was $0.60. If one considers the special distribution, current distribution yield through the past twelve months is 13.14% which would place PCI at the 97%tile of the category. Figure 4. PCI. Regular and special distributions since inception. Of course the difference between the regular distribution at 10.52% and the regular plus full distribution of 13.14% is considerable, but is not predictive for future yield from the fund. The special distributions are special and variable. An investor cannot count on them. One indicator of expectations for a year-end special distribution is undistributed net investment income (UNII). This is where PDI excels, but PCI falls short. Cefconnect list PCI as having -$0.0656 in UNII. Not enough to cause real concern, but it is in negative territory which would indicate that a large year-end special distribution based on excess income will not be forthcoming in 2015. Summing up the distribution situation, PCI has an exceptionally high distribution yield driven in part by its large discount. It looks sustainable at this time. On the surface it is higher than that of PDI but when one considers the history and likelihood of special distributions in the mix, PDI is returning a greater yield. The other significant aspect of UNII is that it is a predictor of distribution stability and sustainability. This is obvious from the recent fall of the PIMCO High Income Fund (NYSE: PHK ) as documented in this recent article on Seeking Alpha . If you are concerned about the stability of distributions for any CEFs you may hold or be researching, I refer you to the cases explored there. Where PDI is at the top of the category for UNII/Distribution, PCI is only at the 37%tile. This has not prevented managers from raising PCI’s distribution, so I’m not inclined to see it as an indicator that the fund’s distribution is in trouble. If I were holding PCI I would be watching this metric carefully in the coming months. Fund Performance Actual return is a interesting facet of CEFs. On one hand there is return to an investor, which is the market return. On the other there is return on NAV which is the true indicator of how a fund is performing. Premium/discount status determines the differences between the two. PCI has outperformed only 38-39% of the category’s funds for total return on market price and NAV for the past year. This is far from an encouraging performance record, particularly when one considers that it has not been a good year for fixed-income. The median fund has a total return on NAV for the trailing twelve months of -0.2% and at market price it’s -5.98%. For PCI 1yr return on price is -7.2%. These returns show make an investor wary of PCI at this time. If tough times persist in fixed income, and there is ample reason to believe they might, declines in price (both at market and NAV) may continue to erode value for the fund’s investors. Add the fact of negative UNII (slight, but negative nonetheless) and PCI’s high yield begins to look much less attractive. I’ve been focused on PCI relative to PDI and the other funds in its category. I’ll now turn attention to PCI itself. What is the fund about. PDI has been operating for a bit over 30 months (inception date: 29 Jan 2013). It has a category-leading total net assets of $2.57B and its effective leverage of 42.44% is higher than all but one fund in the taxable income category. Management fees and other expenses are 1.382% excluding interest expense and 1.501% with interest costs (data from Pimco ). Morningstar compares its performance to Barclays US Aggregate Bond Total Return and its Multisector Bond category. It lists only 2014 and 2015 (YTD) comparisons and the fund underperformed in 2014 but is doing relatively well YTD. Fund Characteristics PCI has a broad investment mandate but is somewhat more focused than PDI. From the sponsor’s website : The fund will normally invest at least 50% of its net assets in corporate income-producing securities of varying maturities issued by U.S. or foreign (non-U.S.) corporations or other business entities, including emerging market issuers. Corporate income-producing securities include fixed-, variable- and floating-rate bonds, debentures, notes and other similar types of corporate debt instruments, such as preferred shares, convertible securities, bank loans and loan participations and assignments, payment-in-kind securities, zero-coupon bonds, bank certificates of deposit, fixed time deposits and bankers’ acceptances, stressed debt securities, structured notes, and other hybrid instruments. As for types of investments: The fund will normally invest at least 80% of its net assets (plus any borrowings for investment purposes) in a portfolio of debt instruments of varying maturities. The fund will normally invest at least 25% of its total assets (i.e., concentrate) in privately issued (commonly known as “non-agency”) mortgage-related securities.: And, “The Fund may normally invest up to 40% of its total assets in securities of issuers economically tied to emerging market countries. This definition is broad and flexible. Its successes or failures will depend on the abilities of management to handle that flexibility. Most of the management team (Daniel Ivascyn, Sai S. Devabhaktuni, Mark Kiesel, Elizabeth O. MacLean and Alfred Murata) has been place since the fund’s inception. Fund documents state that the fund “will normally maintain an average portfolio duration of between zero and eight years.” This is identical to PDI and Morningstar lists effective duration at 2.27 (unadjusted) and 3.91 (adjusted for leverage) which is about a half year longer than comparable durations for PDI. No information is provided on the portfolio’s credit quality. The fund’s holding by sector allocation on market value is (from the PIMCO website): This sector breakdown varies form that of PDI in one important element; PDI has twice as much of its portfolio in mortgage securities. For PDI mortgage securities comprise 2/3 of the portfolio; for PCI it is only 1/3 but that is a substantial increase in the last four months. I last looked at the two funds in May 2015. At that time PCI held only 0.11% in mortgage-back securities. Another change since May is in the geographic distribution of the fund’s portfolio. This chart from the May article shows where PCI was positioned at that time: Figure 5 . PCI. Geographical distribution of the fund’s portfolio in May 2015 (taken from Is It Time To Sell These PIMCO Closed-End Funds? ). Compare this distribution to the current distribution shown in the table below. The current geographical breakdown of the portfolio from Morningstar is: In less than 4 months time the portfolio has been repositioned to strongly favor U.S. bonds, while U.K. and Canada exposure has dropped precipitously from 3/8 of the portfolio to less than 4%. Brazil and Ireland did not even show up in May, now they represent more than 5% of the portfolio. This comparison illustrates the dynamic nature of PCI’s portfolio management. Brazilian bonds are currently the largest holding in the portfolio. With the recent downgrading of Brazil’s sovereign debt to junk status, management’s move into the sector may have been less than timely. The fund’s top 10 holdings sorted from PIMCO’s downloadable spreadsheet are: PCI shares the same risk factors facing PDI in the coming months. Interest rate risk with the on-going anxiety over rising interest rates is primary. The meltdown in emerging markets is also a factor. Each has been weighing on the space for some time. Together they have taken their toll on the fund’s NAV returns and, more severely, on the fund’s returns to investors at market. I do not expect the inevitable uptick in interest rates to be characterized by sudden and markedly disruptive increases. Rather I expect gradual changes that a well managed fund should be able to handle. Indeed, as rates do begin to rise, I would prefer to have my fixed-income allocation positioned to emphasize proven management. PCI’s managers have decreased duration over the past year and “has an outright short on the long-end of the curve” (June 30, 2015 Quarterly Commentary). I have been holding a position in PCI. While I am confident that the fund will continue to deliver excellent income I am concerned about the declines in principal and for the near-term future of the category itself. I am not concerned about the stability or sustainability of the distribution and am encouraged in this view by the small but meaningful increase in that distribution this month. The historically low discount is only of interest to a new buyer, and a new buyer may find value there. To someone holding the fund with no inclination to add to the position, the increasingly deep discount is more of a frustration. In summary, I will continue to hold the fund but if I were considering a new position in a taxable income CEF, I would be more likely to go with PDI, its older sibling, at this time. Disclosure: I am/we are long PCI, PDI. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. Additional disclosure: I remind readers that this article does not constitute investment advice. I am passing along the results of my research on the subject. Any investor who finds these results intriguing will certainly want to do all due diligence to determine if any investment mentioned here is suitable for his or her portfolio. As always I welcome your comments and critiques, particularly from those readers who have contrary opinions.

Finding Bargains Among Emerging Markets Bond CEFs

Summary The discounts associated with emerging markets CEFs are at historic highs, with many discounts over 2 standard deviations from the mean. Emerging markets CEFs have been significantly more volatile than their ETF counterparts. ESD, EMD and MSD had the best risk-adjusted performance among the CEFs analyzed. Over the past several weeks, I have been writing about potential bargains among Closed End Funds (CEFs). This week I will continue the series by analyzing the risks and returns associated with Emerging Markets (NYSE: EM ) Bond CEFs. Before jumping into the analysis, I will provide a quick review of some of the characteristics of this asset class. The term emerging market refers to securities domiciled in a country that is considered to be emerging from an under-developed economy to a more mainstream environment. These countries are typically in Africa, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, and some Asian countries. Many of these economies depend on either exporting commodities or providing services to the more developed world. There are several subclasses of EM bonds. For example, EM bonds may trade in either the currency associated with their country or trade in U.S. dollars. In addition, EM bonds may be corporate bonds or government treasuries (which are usually referred to as sovereign debt). Some of the reasons for investing in the bonds of emerging markets include: EM bonds offer higher yields than comparable bonds from developed countries. As the credit worthiness of an emerging economy improves, the rating of the bonds may improve leading to capital gains. EM bonds rise and fall due to local conditions, which may not be in sync with the U.S. market, thus offering diversification. If the EM bond is denominated in local currency, there is a potential for additional appreciation due to currency fluctuations. Of course, depreciation is also a possibility (which has happened recently). Since many EM bonds are thinly traded and are available only on local exchanges, it is difficult for individual investors to purchase these bonds individually. The easiest way to invest in this asset class is to buy funds. Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) are the most popular vehicle with some ETFs trading over 700,000 shares per day. However, Closed End Funds (CEFs) are an alternative choice. The closed nature of these CEFs makes it easier for the manager to invest and hold limited liquidity assets without having to worry about cash inflows and outflows. However, the downside of CEFs is that the price is based on market action, which can wreak havoc when the asset falls from favor. This has been demonstrated with a vengeance since the second quarter of 2013 when talk of the Fed increasing rates led to a collapse of prices of these CEFs. As prices deteriorated, the discounts of these CEFs widened to historical large levels, many over 18%. This is evidenced by a large negative Z-score, a statistic popularized by Morningstar to measure how far a discount (or premium) is from the average discount (or premium). The Z-score is computed in terms of standard deviations from the mean so it can be used to rank CEFs. A Z-score lower (more negative) than minus 2 is a relatively rare event, occurring less than 2.25% of the time. However, in today’s environment, most of the EM CEFs have a one year Z-score of negative 2 or lower, which illustrates the current lack of demand for these CEFs. There are several reasons that investor lost confidence in emerging markets: The dollar has been in a bull market, which means that emerging markets currencies are becoming weaker versus the dollar. The Fed may finally begin to tighten in the near future, which will again strengthen the dollar. Commodities are in a bear market and many emerging market economies depend on the sale of commodities. When commodities swoon, so do these economies, putting pressure on their bonds. China is the largest emerging market and turmoil in China has crushed some of the lesser economies Has the rout in emerging markets gone too far? I believe in the wisdom of Warren Buffet when he opined: “Be greedy when others are fearful.” I am not clairvoyant and have no idea how long it will take the EM bonds to recover. Some bonds may default, but on a whole I believe a diversified basket of EM bonds will be a smart investment. If you decide to invest in this type of bond, the question is: what are the “best” funds to purchase? There are many ways to define “best.” Some investors may use total return as a metric but as a retiree, risk is as important to me as return. Therefore, I define “best” as the asset that provides the most reward for a given level of risk and I measure risk by the volatility. Please note that I am not advocating that this is the way everyone should define “best”; I am just saying that this is the definition that works for me. This article will compare the risks and rewards of EM bond CEFs. I will use a 5-year time frame and require that the selected funds trade an average of 50,000 shares or more per day. Based on these criteria, I included the following CEFs for my analysis: MS Emerging Markets Domestic (NYSE: EDD ). This CEF invests in emerging market domestic debt and sells for a discount of 18%, which is a much larger discount than the 5 year average discount of 10.1%. The one year Z-score is minus 2. This is the only leveraged fund that invests exclusively in local currency debt. The fund has 46 securities, almost all in sovereign debt. Even though the bonds are from emerging markets, about 67% are actually investment grade (BBB or higher). The fund invests in a wide range of countries including Brazil (16%), Mexico (16%), South Africa (16%), Malaysia (15%), Poland (14%) and Turkey (14%). The fund utilizes 31% leverage and has an expense ratio of 2.2%. The distribution rate is 12.5 %, which is funded by income with some Return of Capital (NYSE: ROC ) in one quarter over the past year. The Undistributed Net Investment Income (UNII) is negative and is large when compared to the distribution, which is a concern. MS Emerging Markets Debt (NYSE: MSD ). This CEF sells for a discount of 18.5%, which is a larger discount than the 5 year average discount of 10.8%. The one year Z-score is minus 2.6. The fund has 115 holdings, with about 51% in sovereign debt and 46% in corporate bonds. Virtually all the bonds are denominated in U.S. dollars. Geographically, the holdings are distributed among a large number of countries including Mexico (13%), Indonesia (11%), Venezuela (7%), and Turkey (7%). About 41% of the bonds are investment grade. MSD uses 8% leverage and has an expense ratio of 1.2%. The distribution is 6.6% with no ROC. Western Asset Emerging Markets Debt (NYSE: ESD ). This CEF sells at a discount of 18.3%, which is a larger discount than the 5 year average discount of 8.6%. It has 240 holdings with 51% in sovereign debt and 42% in corporate bonds. The assets are distributed among several countries including Mexico (13%), Indonesia (11%), Turkey (7%), and Venezuela (7%). About 69% of the portfolio is investment grade. The fund uses 16% leverage and has an expense ratio of 1.2%. The distribution is 9.1%, consisting primarily of income and some ROC (about 10% of the distribution). UNII is negative but is less than one month distribution. Western Asset Emerging Markets Income (NYSE: EMD ). This CEF sells for a discount of 18.5%, which is a larger discount than the 5 year average discount of 8.6%. The one year Z-score is minus 2.2. The fund has 235 holdings with 53% in sovereign debt and 42% in corporate bonds. About 73% of the holdings are investment quality. The assets are distributed among several countries including Mexico (12%), Indonesia (9%), Turkey (9%), Netherlands (6%), and Peru (5%). The fund utilizes 14% leverage and has an expense ratio of 1.3%. The distribution is 8.5%, consisting primarily of income with about 30% ROC but the UNII is positive. Global High Income Fund (NYSE: GHI ). This CEF sells for a discount of 13.6%, which is a larger discount than the 5 year average discount of 7.3%. The one year Z-score is only minus 0.1. The fund has 308 holdings, with 66% in sovereign debt and 26% in corporate bonds. All the holdings are denominated in U.S. dollars. The holdings are distributed among a large number of countries including Brazil (11%), Turkey (7%), Indonesia (8%), Mexico (6%), and Russia (5%). About 38% of the holdings are investment grade. This fund does not use leverage and has an expense ratio of 1.4%. The distribution is 10.9%, consisting primarily of income and ROC. The ROC occurred in about 60% of the months over the last year and comprised about 30% of the distribution. The UNII is positive. Templeton Emerging Markets Income (NYSE: TEI ). This CEF sells at a discount of 17%, which is a larger discount than the 5 year average discount of 1.5%. The one year Z-score is minus 2.4. This fund has 119 holdings with 56% invested in sovereign debt, 24% in corporate bonds, and 13% in short term debt. The securities are distributed across many countries including Iraq (11%), Indonesia (11%), Zambia (10%), Hungary 990%), and UAE (8%). The fund does not utilize leverage and the expense ratio is 1.1%. The distribution is 8.1%, consisting of income with no ROC. For comparison, I will also include the following ETF: iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond (NYSEARCA: EMB ). This ETF is a passive fund that tracks an index made up of U.S. dollar denominated emerging market bonds. The country allocations are rebalanced monthly, based on the amount of outstanding debt. The fund has 287 holdings with 78% in sovereign debt and 21% in corporate bonds. About 62% of the portfolio is investment grade. The holdings are spread across a large range of countries including Russia (6%), Philippines (6%), Turkey (5%), Indonesia (5%) and Mexico (6%). Overall, 28 countries are represented. The fund has an expense ratio of 0.40% and yields 4.5%. To assess the performance of the selected CEFs, I plotted the annualized rate of return in excess of the risk free rate (called Excess Mu in the charts) versus the volatility of each of the component funds over the past 5 years. The risk free rate was set at 0% so that performance could be easily assessed. This plot is shown in Figure 1. Note that the rate of return is based on price, not Net Asset Value (NYSE: NAV ). (click to enlarge) Figure 1. Risk versus reward over the past 5 years. The plot illustrates that the CEFs have booked a wide range of returns and volatilities over the past 5 years. To better assess the relative performance of these funds, I calculated the Sharpe Ratio. The Sharpe Ratio is a metric, developed by Nobel laureate William Sharpe that measures risk-adjusted performance. It is calculated as the ratio of the excess return over the volatility. This reward-to-risk ratio (assuming that risk is measured by volatility) is a good way to compare peers to assess if higher returns are due to superior investment performance or from taking additional risk. In Figure 1, I plotted a red line that represents the Sharpe Ratio associated with EMB. If an asset is above the line, it has a higher Sharpe Ratio than EMB. Conversely, if an asset is below the line, the reward-to-risk is worse than EMB. Note also that Sharpe Ratios are not meaningful if a stock has a negative return. Some interesting observations are evident from Figure 1. The CEFs were substantially more volatile than the ETF. This was expected since CEFs are actively managed, may use leverage, and may sell at discounts or premiums. All of these attributes tend to increase volatility. The EM CEFs did not have great performance over the period. EM bonds have been in a bear market since 2013 and the prices associated with CEFs decreased faster than Net Asset Value . Since EMB is an ETF that does not sell at a discount, EMB has much better risk-adjusted performance than any of the CEFs. Looking only at the CEFs, MSD had the best performance followed by ESD and EMD. The other three CEFs were underwater for the period. Next I wanted to see if the diversification promised by these emerging markets bonds lived up to expectation. To be “diversified,” you want to choose assets such that when some assets are down, others are up. In mathematical terms, you want to select assets that are uncorrelated (or at least not highly correlated) with each other. I calculated the pair-wise correlations associated with the selected funds. The results are provided in Figure 2. As is evident from the figure, these CEFs provided relatively good diversification with correlations in the 50% to 60% range. Thus, these CEFs did provide good portfolio diversification. (click to enlarge) Figure 2. Correlation over past 5 years. The 5 year look-back data shows how these funds have performed in the past. However, the real question is how they will perform in the future when the bull market in EM debt returns. Of course, no one knows, but we can obtain some insight by looking at the most recent bull market period from March 2009 to January, 2013. Figure 3 plots the risk-versus-reward for the funds over this bull market time frame. (click to enlarge) Figure 3. Risk versus reward during a bull market As expected, all the funds had excellent performance over this bull market period. The CEFs all had higher absolute returns than EMB but were also significantly more volatile. When volatility was taken into account, EMB was still a leader in risk-adjusted performance. However, during the bull market, EMD matched EMB in risk-adjusted performance and ESD, TEI, and MSD were not far behind. EDD and GHI continued to lag the other funds. Bottom Line If you are a risk-adverse investor who wants to diversify into emerging market bonds, EMB would be your best bet. However, if you want to take advantage of the wide discounts associated with CEFs, I would recommend ESD, EMD and MSD. These three CEFs had good performance over the entire 5 year period plus will likely excel if the bull returns. When this asset class returns to favor, I would expect the discounts to revert back to the mean and this would provide some capital gains to go along with attractive distributions. But beware, emerging markets CEFs are not for the faint hearted. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, but may initiate a long position in ESD,EMD, MSD over the next 72 hours. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.