Tag Archives: investing

Best And Worst Q1’16: Materials ETFs, Mutual Funds And Key Holdings

The Materials sector ranks fourth out of the ten sectors as detailed in our Q1’16 Sector Ratings for ETFs and Mutual Funds report. Last quarter , the Materials sector ranked seventh. It gets our Neutral rating, which is based on aggregation of ratings of nine ETFs and 15 mutual funds in the Materials sector. See a recap of our Q4’15 Sector Ratings here . Figure 1 ranks from best to worst the eight Materials ETFs that meet our liquidity standards and Figure 2 shows the five best and worst-rated Materials mutual funds. Not all Materials sector ETFs and mutual funds are created the same. The number of holdings varies widely (from 26 to 121). This variation creates drastically different investment implications and, therefore, ratings. Investors seeking exposure to the Materials sector should buy one of the Attractive-or-better rated ETFs or mutual funds from Figures 1 and 2. Figure 1: ETFs with the Best & Worst Ratings – Top 5 Click to enlarge * Best ETFs exclude ETFs with TNAs less than $100 million for inadequate liquidity. Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings The Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (NYSEARCA: FMAT ) is excluded from Figure 1 because its total net assets are below $100 million and do not meet our liquidity minimums. Figure 2: Mutual Funds with the Best & Worst Ratings – Top 5 Click to enlarge * Best mutual funds exclude funds with TNAs less than $100 million for inadequate liquidity. Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings The iShares U.S. Basic Materials ETF (NYSEARCA: IYM ) is the top-rated Materials ETF and the Fidelity Select Materials Portfolio (MUTF: FMFEX ) is the top-rated Materials mutual fund. Both earn an Attractive rating. PowerShares S&P SmallCap Materials Portfolio (NASDAQ: PSCM ) is the worst-rated Materials ETF and the Rydex Basic Materials Fund (MUTF: RYBMX ) is the worst-rated Materials mutual fund. PSCM earns a Dangerous rating and RYBMX earns a Very Dangerous rating. 161 stocks of the 3000+ we cover are classified as Materials stocks. Monsanto Company (NYSE: MON ) is one of our favorite stocks held by IYM and earns an Attractive rating. Over the past decade, Monsanto has grown after-tax profit ( NOPAT ) by 16% compounded annually. Over this same time, the company has improved its return on invested capital ( ROIC ) from 7% to 14%. Despite the long-term profitability of the company, shares remain undervalued. At its current price of $88/share, Monsanto has a price to economic book value ( PEBV ) ratio of 1.1. This ratio means the market expects Monsanto’s profits to grow by only 10% over its remaining corporate life. If Monsanto can grow NOPAT by just 5% (under a third of historical rate) compounded annually for the next decade , shares are worth $140/share today – a 59% upside. Vulcan Materials (NYSE: VMC ) is one of our least favorite stocks held by Materials ETFs and mutual funds and earns a Dangerous rating. Vulcan Materials business has yet to recover from the global recession in 2008. Since 2007, the company’s economic earnings have fallen from -$88 million to -$463 million on a trailing twelve months basis. Over this same time, its ROIC has declined from 8% to a bottom quintile 3%. Despite the deterioration of the business, the stock trades at the same prices it did prior to the recession, which leaves it significantly overvalued. To justify its current price of $82/share, Vulcan must grow profits by 14% compounded annually for the next 25 years . This expectation is awfully optimistic given that since 1998, Vulcan’s NOPAT has actually declined by 1% compounded annually. Figures 3 and 4 show the rating landscape of all Materials ETFs and mutual funds. Figure 3: Separating the Best ETFs From the Worst ETFs Click to enlarge Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Figure 4: Separating the Best Mutual Funds From the Worst Mutual Funds Click to enlarge Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings D isclosure: David Trainer and Kyle Guske II receive no compensation to write about any specific stock, sector or theme. 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.

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.