Tag Archives: income

5 Portfolio Ideas For 2016

As a new year begins, investors are facing a more difficult market environment. The Federal Reserve’s (Fed) zero interest rate policy is ending after seven years , the global economy is slowing , and according to Bloomberg data, financial assets of all stripes aren’t entirely cheap. Looking forward, following many years of rising valuations on the back of aggressive monetary policy, I believe the market returns are likely to be more muted in 2016. At the same time, given rising geopolitical uncertainty, the markets look sure to be more temperamental after years of relative calm. Amid high prices and high volatility, selectivity will be key to generating returns. So, where should investors look for opportunities? In my new piece, ” The BlackRock List ,” I share five portfolio ideas to consider. What to Consider in 2016 Look Abroad Given currently high valuations, U.S. stocks may well face substantial headwinds in the coming year. In contrast, outside of the U.S., stock prices look more attractive . I particularly like Europe and Japan, where valuations are more compelling and central banks are still delivering market-friendly monetary easing. As for emerging markets (EM), prices generally seem reasonable given recent underperformance. However, EM equities are fighting an uphill battle, held back by an appreciating U.S. dollar, falling commodity prices and flagging exports. As a result, within EM, consider being selective, either with an active manager who can drill down and identify opportunities while also managing portfolio risk, or through a combination of more granular indexed approaches. Consider Hedging Currency Exposure In International Markets Monetary policy divergence points to a strong dollar and weaker euro, meaning it may make sense to hedge international currency exposure . Be More Active With equity returns likely to moderate and volatility set to rise, investors face a difficult choice: Accept lower returns, or take on greater risk. I believe investors could benefit from looking to active managers to source some of their returns . Low volatility and strong returns benefited indexers the last six years, as active managers generally lagged their benchmarks. But higher volatility also means greater dispersion in security returns, creating a better opportunity set for skilled active managers. Go For An Unconstrained Income Strategy Income will remain a hot commodity in 2016, as interest rates are likely to stay low even as the Fed hikes and other income sources also face hurdles. For instance, stocks with relatively safe dividends, such as utilities, have been heavily bought and bid up in price amid the investors’ search for income. In this environment, generating ample income will require more than a single asset type as well as a careful balance of yield and risk. This is why an unconstrained income strategy , such as BlackRock’s Multi-Asset Income Fund, is worth considering. Diversify With Long-Term Bonds The best approach for weathering a financial market storm is the oldest one in the playbook: Diversification. While I prefer stocks over bonds heading into 2016, investors who are overweight equities are vulnerable to any unexpected political or growth shock, and should consider the right hedge. Specifically, longer-duration bonds are reasserting their role as an effective ballast to equity risk, and can be especially helpful in equity-centric portfolios. Within bonds, I prefer Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) to plain-vanilla Treasuries. Deflated inflation expectations seem like an anomaly, unless you expect oil prices to free fall forever. This makes TIPS look relatively attractive . This post originally appeared on the BlackRock Blog.

Just Sold Your Bond Funds? Consider QSPNX And Its Low Volatility Twin

Alternatives can provide superior risk-adjusted returns, less volatility, and proven downside protection. AQR Premia Style Alternative N Fund and AQR Premia Style Alternative Low Volatility N Fund. Integrating these two style premia alternative funds into your portfolio. Surfing beach near Tofino, B.C. Ⓒ Sandy Cliff Research Alternative funds come in many shapes and sizes these days. In the past six years, they have flooded the market. Why? Because, if structured properly, they can provide superior risk-adjusted returns and less volatility. As Vanguard pointed out in its August 2014 white paper Liquid alts: a better mousetrap? these new strategies “constitute a new industry with explosive growth. More than 70% of their cash flows and 68% of new product launches have come since 2009; 50% of these flows and products have come just in the three years through 2013.” For a detailed listing of alternative funds launched just last year, see DailyAlts.com New Funds listing . Long-short, market-neutral, style premia, managed futures, and multialternative are some examples of these offerings. Financial advisors are now recommending these types of investments to replace varying percentages of equities and bonds in a traditional portfolio. The AQR Style Premia Alternative Fund ( QSPNX ) and AQR Style Premia Alternative LV Fund ( QSLNX ): AQR Capital Management: AQR Funds started out as a hedge fund shop in 1998 and entered the mutual fund business in 2009 in order to make its strategies available to a wider range of investors. Quantitative research forms the basis for all of the firm’s strategies. The firm has an academic bent with many of its principals and associates holding Ph.Ds. Fund managers and associates continue to research and refine the methodologies used in their funds. Results of their findings are often published in academic journals and can be found at AQR.com . Additional information on the two Premia funds discussed below as well as other AQR funds can be found at funds.AQR.com Fund Classes and Purchase Information: The details offered for these two funds refer to the N share class. Both N and I share classes are available from Fidelity with a minimum purchase of $1,000,000 for the N class and a minimum of $5,000,000 for the I class. However, initial minimum investments of these funds into “group retirement accounts such as Fidelity Simplified Employee Pension-IRA, Keogh, Self-Employed 401(k), and Non-Fidelity Prototype Retirement accounts are $500 or higher. Additional investments into Regular, IRA, and Group accounts are $250 or higher.” I was able to buy both QSPNX and QSLNX for my Fidelity retirement IRA for a minimum purchase of $2,500. AQR funds, according to the Morningstar entry for each of these funds, can also be purchased at over a dozen U.S. other financial forms including Vanguard, Schwab, etc. Important note: All share classes of the AQR Style Premia Alternative Fund and the AQR Style Premia Alternative LV Fund will close to new investors effective at the close of business on January 29, 2016. In November 2015, AQR stated that these two funds were closing due to “capacity constraints associated with the investment strategy employed by these Funds.” However, prior to this announcement, AQR filed with the SEC for approval for a new AQR Style Premia Alternative Fund II. There is no word as yet on date launch, expenses or any details on whether a low volatility version of this will be launched as well. Investing Style: The Style Premia Alternative and the Style Premia Alternative LV invest long and short across six different asset groups: stocks of major developed markets – approximately fourteen hundred stocks (for QSLNX and up to 1800 stocks for QSPNX) across major markets equity indices – twenty-one equity indexes from developed and emerging markets fixed income – bond futures across six markets; short-term interest rate futures in four markets currencies – twenty-two currencies in developed and emerging markets commodities – eight commodity futures Management employs long-short strategies across all of these asset groups based on four investment styles: value – the tendency for relatively cheap assets to outperform relatively expensive ones momentum – the tendency for an asset’s recent relative performance to continue in the future carry – the tendency for higher-yielding assets to provide higher returns than lower-yielding assets defensive – the tendency for lower-risk and higher-quality assets to generate higher risk-adjusted returns Management since inception: Andrea Frazzini, Ph.D., M.S.; Jacques A. Friedman, M.S.; Ronen Israel, M.A.; Michael Katz, Ph.D., A.M. oversee both funds. Details specific to QSPNX: Opened on 10/31/13. 2015 Return: 11.08%. 2015 Return: 8.50%. Expenses: 1.75%. Annualized volatility target level: 10% (with a range of 8-12%). Fund size: $1.7 billion. The listed % of risk allocation is: Global Stock Selection 33.7% Equity Markets 18.8% Fixed Income 16.5% Commodities 16.2% Currencies 14.7% Number of long holdings 969; number of short holdings 732. Details specific to QSLNX: Opened on 9/17/14. Year 2015 Return: 3.85%. Expenses: 1.10%. Annualized volatility target level: 5% (similar to the historical volatility of intermediate-term government bonds; typical range between 3% and 7%). Fund size: $185.2 million. Percent of risk allocation is: Global Stock Selection 33.2% Equity Markets 20.3% Fixed Income 17.3% Currencies 15.9% Commodities 13.4% Number of long holdings 864; number of short holdings 659. Integrating These Two Style Premia Alternative Funds Into A Portfolio: The alternatives landscape is littered with suggestions for adding alternatives to a portfolio, but the deciding factors are simply the individual investor’s risk tolerance, including a risk of buying an alternative fund with a short track record, and the individual’s investment timeline. I view these two Style Premia funds as alternatives to bonds within my IRA retirement portfolio. Because of tax implications, they are best held in an IRA or similar account. I have also recently added a market neutral and an equity long-short fund to my allocation. The Vanguard Managed Payout Fund (MUTF: VPGDX ) makes use of stocks, bonds, alternatives, including the Vanguard Market Neutral Fund (MUTF: VMNFX ). It has a mix that is worth considering as a foundation if you are thinking about adding alternatives to your portfolio mix. Here is a listing of its current holdings: Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund 20.1% Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund 19.7% Vanguard Global Minimum Volatility Fund 15.1% Vanguard Total Bond Market II Index Fund 12.0% Vanguard Alternative Strategies Fund 10.4% Vanguard Market Neutral Fund Investor Shares 7.0% Vanguard Total International Bond Index Fund 5.8% Commodities 5.0% Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index Fund 4.9 For further information on alternatives you might want to check out: Brian Haskin, “Retiring Baby Boomers to Continue Liquid Alts Boom?” at DailyAlts.com which gives a good summary of and access to the PDF of “Liquid Alternatives: The Next Wave in Asset Allocation” by Matthew Glaser, Managing Director and Portfolio Manager/Analyst at Lazard Asset Management.

8% Current Income And Stable Principal From A Portfolio Of Closed-End Funds

Summary This High-Income, Stable-Capital CEF portfolio is designed to generate current income with reasonable tax efficiency. The portfolio’s second, and equally weighted, objective is long-term sustainability of capital. The objectives are addressed by entering positions in quality funds when their discount status is attractive. This article summarizes the final quarter of 2015. High Current Income and Capital Stability from CEFs At the end of 2015’s gut-wrenching third quarter (chart at right) I took note of the sharp declines in closed-end funds and considered that an opportunity was at hand. I proposed a portfolio of CEFs ( A CEF Portfolio For High Current Income With Capital Preservation ) designed to generate high current income with capital sustainability: The Stable-Capital, High Current-Income Portfolio. With the fourth quarter in the books, it’s time to review the results. I’ll not spend time here rehashing the details of the portfolio; interested readers should refer to the article cited above. But I will say that one incentive for building this model grew from my frustration with the performances of ETFs, ETNs and CEFs that offer portfolios of CEFs. As the name implies, the model has three objectives: First is high yields for current income. I’ve targeted 8% for taxable funds and 5% for tax-free municipal bond funds. Any excess is to be reinvested. Second is sustainable principal value. Capital growth is not an explicit objective, but maintaining a sustainable principal while withdrawing income at approximately 7.6% will obviously require periods of capital growth to offset inevitable periods of capital erosion. Third is tax efficiency. I wanted a manageable portfolio, so I limited the selections to 15 funds and equally weighted them. The portfolio is diversified across income asset classes. The funds selected are: Equity (40%) Dow 30 Premium & Dividend Income Fund Inc. (NYSE: DIAX ) Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunities Fund (NYSE: ETW ) Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Diversified Equity Income Fund (NYSE: ETY ) Tekla Healthcare Investors (NYSE: HQH ) NASDAQ Premium Income & Growth Fund Inc. (NASDAQ: QQQX ) Columbia Seligman Premium Technology Growth Fund, Inc. (NYSE: STK ) Real Estate (6.7%) Cohen & Steers Total Return Realty Fund Inc. (NYSE: RFI ) Preferreds (13.3%) Flaherty & Crumrine Preferred Securities Income Fund Inc. (NYSE: FFC ) First Trust Intermediate Duration Preferred & Income Fund (NYSE: FPF ) Fixed Income – Taxable (26.7%) Western Asset Mortgage Defined Opportunity Fund Inc. (NYSE: DMO ) PIMCO Strategic Income Fund, Inc. (NYSE: RCS ) AllianzGI Convertible & Income Fund (NYSE: NCV ) PIMCO Dynamic Income Fund (NYSE: PDI ) Fixed Income – Tax-Free Municipal Bond (13.3%) Eaton Vance Municipal Bond Fund (NYSEMKT: EIM ) MFS Municipal Income Trust (NYSE: MFM ) Comparables The comparables I’m using for this portfolio are: Cohen & Steers Closed-End Opp (NYSE: FOF ), an unleveraged closed-end fund of funds with 85 CEFs in its portfolio. PowerShares CEF Income Composite (NYSEARCA: PCEF ), an unleveraged ETF holding 147 closed-end funds. UBS E-TRACS Mthly Pay 2x Closed End ETN (NYSEARCA: CEFL ), an ETN (Exchange Traded Note) indexed to a 2x leveraged portfolio of 30 closed-end funds. YieldShares High Income ETF (NYSEARCA: YYY ), an unleveraged ETF that holds a portfolio of 30 closed-end funds using the same index as CEFL. Fourth Quarter Results Income The first objective is current income, so let’s start with a look at distributions for the funds. Recall that any distributions for the quarter over 2% (8% annualized) for 13 taxable funds and over 1.25% (5% annualized) for two tax-free, muni-bond funds are retained for reinvestment. (click to enlarge) Total distribution was $3430.00, a return of 3.26% for the quarter. The return is enhanced by three funds posting special distributions. PDI added $2.61/share for $608.13; DMO added $1.20/share for $322.80; and RCS added $0.04/share for $32.28. Thus, special distributions put an extra $963.21 or 28.08% to the quarter’s yield. When only the regular distributions are considered, the portfolio paid $2466.79, which exceeds the anticipated $2,372.43 by 4% (see previous article for a discussion of anticipated yields). Distributions for all but three funds met the 8%/5% target. The shortfalls were minimal and were anticipated at the onset: DIAX -$10.60, FPF -$31.10, and QQQX -$14.62. Overall, the 8%/5% target objective was exceeded by $1,428.03, which is available to reinvest. At the quarter’s close, yields for the funds are as shown in this next chart. (click to enlarge) As we see, a few have increased but most now have decreased yield percentages, reflecting changes in market prices. This leads to discussion of the next objective: stability of principal. Price Performance and Capital Stability It was a good quarter for the portfolio. Somewhat surprisingly so, in fact, considering the generally poor performance of equity and fixed-income markets. Here is the market price performance for the portfolio’s funds. (click to enlarge) Only four funds had price declines. For two of these, PDI and DMO, the declines were partially a consequence of their high special distributions. One, FPF, is essentially flat. And one, NCV, is the portfolio’s big loser having given up 4.5%. I added NCV to the portfolio because I felt that it was due for a move up. It had just come off a large dividend cut and moved from a perennial premium to a discount of -15%. The fund was paying a 13.44% yield. I anticipated the discount would be reduced and the fund would stabilize at a somewhat higher valuation to NAV. This has happened; the discount is now -11.2%, but NAV has been falling along with the rest of the high-yield bond market. The fund does, however, continue to pay an exceptional distribution (14.1%). Two funds that have been long-time favorites of mine, STK and HQH, had stunningly good quarters; they’re up 13.8% and 12.1%. I’ve written on both of these several times over the past couple of years, and regular readers are aware of my high regard for both of them. HQH had been unduly beaten down. As the biotech sector dropped mid-year, HQH dropped even further. This is yet another example of the exaggerated panic selling so often seen in closed-end funds. STK was also oversold in response to the summer’s market upheavals in technology. It fell to a -6.2% discount at one point, but was back up to a 2.4% premium when I began this portfolio. Anyone who was quick enough to grab that -6% discount gets my admiration and compliments. Premiums and Discounts Let’s look at the changes in discount/premium status for the funds which provides a bit of an object lesson in CEF investing. (click to enlarge) In large measure I felt that these funds were undervalued and oversold at the end of September. As such they offered especially attractive entry points. As we see here, only one fund (NYSE: DMO ) has not gained value from a favorable move in the discount/premium. Two, FFC and RCS, have grown from moderate-to-modest discounts to substantial premiums. I held both of these at the time I started this exercise. I’ve since sold FFC (and anticipate replacing it with FLC or, perhaps, another preferred share fund) to take advantage of that profit and have been considering doing the same for RCS. RCS is a fund that has run a perennial premium. It dropped to a discount after PIMCO cut distributions on several of its high flyers (not, however, RCS). I felt that RCS’s drop was unwarranted at the time and it quickly turned around. I will likely echo my real-money swap of FFC for another preferred shares fund in this model portfolio once I’ve reviewed the space. It could be FLC here as well, but there are other strong contenders which may be a better fit. Preferred shares are presently a bit of a hot asset class, so everything out there (except FPF which is already in the portfolio) is above its mean discount status. I’ll add here a view of the Z-Scores for the funds from the beginning and end of the quarter because I think it helps to reinforce the emphasis I’ve been putting on moves in discount/premium status relative to mean discount/premiums. (click to enlarge) On the whole, the 29 September Z-scores were indicating reasonable entries for most of the funds. As I noted at the time DMO, EIM, PDI and STK were exceptions, but I wanted those high-quality funds in here despite those apparently unattractive valuations. Notice too, how frequently the Z-scores predict reversion to mean values. By these indicators, HQH remains an especially attractive opportunity (especially so if, like me, you’re inclined to think biotech is due for a recovery), but little else in the mix is. Indeed, I would not be surprised to see some corrections in the other direction in the coming months. As I noted above, RCS and FFC look ripe for profit taking. The equity option-income funds, DIAX and QQQX, which I also suggested were good buys because of their unjustified under-valuations have moved to highly positive Z-scores as well. The problem with trading out of these funds is that one needs to find a replacement. I’ll be working on that as time allows and as I go through a similar exercise for my own portfolio which shares many of these positions. Performance Summary Fourth quarter performance is summarized in this table. (click to enlarge) As shown, the portfolio is up $5,550.27 (5.5%) on market price. Results for the quarter for some asset-class benchmarks are seen in this chart. (click to enlarge) The portfolio performed well relative to these benchmarks. On price returns it lagged the S&P 500, Russell 3000 index and the Dow Jones REIT index, but it beat corporate and high-yield bonds and preferred stocks. Consider that the 5.5% price return does not include the 3.3% distribution yield, a yield unmatched by any of these benchmarks, and it’s clear that it was a good quarter for the HI-SC portfolio. The next chart summarizes the total returns for combined market price and distribution yields for each fund. (click to enlarge) Only NCV is negative for the combined values. Comparables As noted earlier, there are products that offer exposure to CEFs. I’ve not been a big fan of these, but I know many readers are. Here’s how they stack up for the quarter. Each is based on a $100K investment at the quarter’s start. The table that follows shows percentage return for combined market value and distributions. The chart says it all, in my mind. CEFL, true to its charge and 2x leverage, generated remarkable income. But, true to its ongoing track record, that income has come at a substantial capital cost. It does beat FOF and YYY, as it should with its 2x leverage, but it lags PCEF. The lag is trivial but PCEF is an unleveraged product, so in an up-trending quarter, one would have certainly expected a better showing from CEFL than an essentially even run with the ETF. None of these comes close to the HI-SC returns. I’ll be the first to admit here that the model had an unfair advantage in that it was selected at the beginning of the quarter with valuation as a high priority. But I’d also argue that the model portfolio has a much higher quality of funds than any of the comps here and that is also a consideration. We’ll continue following these funds as I do quarterly updates to see if the outperformance trend continues. Updating the Portfolio As it stands there is $1,428 in excess distribution returns to reinvest. One possibility is to add them to the funds that are the greatest distance from the equal-weighted goal. My typical target for rebalancing a portfolio is more than 10% out of balance. This table shows none at that level, but three over 9% out of balance. If I add a third of the reinvestable capital to each of DMO, PDI and NCV it would bring them closer to equal weighting. A good case can be made for this. DMO and PDI are top-of-their-class funds, but their valuations look pricey at the moment. NCV has, as I noted, been hit hard by the flight from high-yield. Is that due to turn around? I think it might to some extent, but I’m not anticipating a good year for that asset class. And when an asset class falters, the CEFs for that asset class almost invariably exaggerate the declines. The fact that NCV has such a high yield argues in favor of bringing it up to near balance. I also am considering taking some profits and swapping out of some funds. I should have some clarity on that in the coming weeks, so I’ll be holding off on the re-investment until I make those decisions. I’ll update on changes when I make them. If you have suggestions, I’d love to hear your opinions in the comments.