Tag Archives: investing

FBT Was +47.55% In 2014 And +10.00% YTD. Will The Returns Continue In 2016?

Summary This established Biotech ETF has an interesting structure but also is quite volatile. With $3.28BLN in assets, will the institutions continue to invest in 2016? We answer these questions and provide our recommendation on this top performer. The First Trust NYSE Arca Biotechnology Index ETF (NYSEARCA: FBT ) is an equal weighted passively managed fund with an established track record, (inception 06/19/2006). The fund seeks to replicate as close possible, before fees and expenses, the price and yield of the NYSE Arca Biotechnology Index, (previously the Amex Biotechnology Index). The interesting structure of the ETF is the 30 components, (previously 20 components prior to October 20, 2014). What is challenging for shareholders is the quarterly rebalancings that occur in late January, April, July and October. Due to the equal weighting objective of the Fund and the underlying Index and the general small to mid-cap nature of the sector, these rebalancings and the ETF, in general, can be volatile. We will analyze the structure of the ETF, its holdings, performance and fees and provide our recommendation. 100% of the ETF is in common equity holdings. Our Market Cap is quite simple, with most of our sources agreeing: FBT Market Capitalization Market Cap Weight Mid cap 34.98% Small cap 33.10% Large cap 31.98% These numbers were courtesy of Fidelity, with xtf.com extremely close in agreement. Morningstar, as we previously noted uses a slightly difference nomenclature. Their breakdown is: Medium at 40.56%, Small at 27.19%, Large at 23.12%, and Giant at 9.12%. Categorically we can state that the majority of the firms in this ETF are small to mid-cap firms with limited products presently, if any, in the marketplace. In terms of the style of the underlying components, it is quite clear to investors who have participated in this space. FBT Ownership Style Style Weight Growth 59.80% Pure Growth 30.00% Blend 7.10% Value 3.10% Without a doubt this ETF is a growth vehicle and not intended for those seeking value investments. Morningstar states that the ownership style is mid or medium and is considered high growth. In terms of currency and countries of the holdings it is somewhat interesting. FBT Country and Currency Exposure Country Weight Currency Weight United States 89.90% United States dollar 89.90% Ireland 3.68% Euro 10.10% Spain 3.23% NA NA Netherlands 3.19% NA NA Our country and currency exposure here is clearly US geographically focused with some Eurozone exposure as noted. The 10.10% euro weighting will not adversely impact this ETF even with the euro possibly moving below dollar-euro parity. As such, we have no issues with the underlying geographical or currency weightings. It is quite clear that the overall sector is 100% healthcare in FPT. The industry exposure is informative. Industry Weight Biotechnology 79.27% Life Sciences Tools & Services 16.29% Pharmaceuticals 4.47% While this is in no way diversified, it does show that there are companies within the ETF which are not pure biotech, but are grouped within the fund. Some of them we do recognize from previous research and there is one firm that we previously analyzed and recommended. We will discuss this firm when we review the holdings. In terms of the holdings, as usual we will analyze the top 15 components, their symbols, ratings, (Moody’s and S&P), if any, and their weight within the ETF and the underlying index {BTK}. In this fund’s case we will also show their individual year to date and 12 month performance. FBT top 15 holdings Name/Symbol YTD perf/ 12 month Ratings, (Moody’s/S&P) Weight-BTF Weight- Index, {BTK} Nektar Therapeutics (NASDAQ: NKTR ) 0.71%/-3.27% NR/NR 4.47% 3.33% Dyax Corp. (NASDAQ: DYAX ) 165.50%/168.18% NR/NR 4.10% 3.33% Isis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: ISIS ) -7.92%/-0.25% NR/NR 4.09% 3.33% Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: ALNY ) 0.74%/-8.18% NR/NR 3.93% 3.33% United Therapeutics Corp. (NASDAQ: UTHR ) 20.08%/16.21% NR/NR 3.78% 3.33% Celldex Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ: CLDX ) -16.33%/-17.19% NR/NR 3.70% 3.33% Alkermes, PLC (NASDAQ: ALKS ) 22.49%/22.62% Ba3/BB 3.68% 3.33% Illumina, Inc. (NASDAQ: ILMN ) -4.60%/-7.27% NR/BBB 3.64% 3.33% Charles River Laboratories International, Inc. (NYSE: CRL ) 18.73%/18.41% Ba2/BBB- 3.57% 3.33% Novavax, Inc. (NASDAQ: NVAX ) 36.09%/46.99% NR/NR 3.48% 3.33% Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: ALXN ) -3.18%/-9.12% NR/NR 3.35% 3.33% Myriad Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ: MYGN ) 25.54%/21.89% NR/NR 3.35% 3.33% Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ: VRTX ) 2.52%/2.02% NR/NR 3.35% 3.33% Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: REGN ) 33.24%/25.67% Baa1/NR 3.32% 3.33% Amgen Inc. (NASDAQ: AMGN ) -0.62%/-5.91% Baa1/A 3.24% 3.33% The top 15 holdings represent 55.05% with an average of 3.67%, with the bottom 15 totaling 44.96%. This was expected with the equal weighting of the ETF. Unlike the index which is even at 3.33% or 1/30 for each holding, the ETF is adjusted for share price and an equal value. Based upon the individual performance of the top 15 holdings, it is fairly obvious that returns are not reasonably predictable without extensive analysis of each company, their future products and FDA approval developments. The equal weightings here do provide an opportunity of participating in one of the top performers, such as Dyax Corporation with a 165.50% return YTD. Obviously, the return on Dyax far outweighs the negative return of a firm such as Celldex Therapeutics at -16.33% YTD. The benefit of the ETF allows participation in a sector where returns can be quite diverse from one firm to another. In terms of credit ratings, only 14.13% (S&P) of the top 15 have ratings and only 25.66% of these 15 holdings. It is quite apparent that with the rapid growth and negative balance sheets of these firms, the majority of the firms are mostly lower grade credits, if rated at all. Only Illumina, Inc., Charles River Laboratories International, Inc and the well known Amgen Inc. are investment grade, as per S&P. One of the firms in the ETF with a weighting of 2.91% is our personal favorite, Quintiles Transnational Holdings, Inc (NYSE: Q ), a company we had previously analyzed and recommended. Quintiles is the leader in {CRO} services or a Contract Research Organization. The company basically performs many of the services that large pharmaceuticals and Biotech firms require to bring their product to market and to continue to develop new and existing products. This would include Consulting Services, Portfolio and Strategy Planning, Clinical Trial Execution, Laboratories, Real-World and Late Stage Trials, Technology Solutions, Patient and Provider Engagement, Product Marketing and Sales. We are a little surprised to see it in this ETF. It is a profitable and quite a large capitalized firm, yet it will continue to grow and profit as long as there is a need for their services from the healthcare sector. As such, we think it is a great way to participate in the overall growth of the firm (14.51% YTD/18.26% 12 month) balanced with the performance of the other holdings in the ETF. Based upon the components and structure we analyzed the overall performance of the ETF and the index. FBT’s Performance, Fees and Recommendation Category FBR {ETF} BTK {Index} Net Expense Ratio .58% NA Turnover Ratio 58.00% NA YTD Return 9.94% (11/30/15) 5.99% (12/07/15) 10.66% (11/30/15) 5.48% (12/07/15) 1-Year Total Return 10.08% (11/30/15) 5.56% (12/07/15) 10.79% (11/30/15) 5.58% (12/07/15) Dividend Yield/SEC Yield 0.17%/-0.43% NA Beta (Shares/Holdings) 1.13/.70 NA P/E Ratio FY1/current 29.60/26.93 NA Price/Book Ratio FY1/current 8.00/7.06 NA Our expense ratio is in-line with the asset class median of 0.53% and is quite acceptable. Our turnover ratio is only slightly surprising here. With an asset class median or 18.00%, we expected much higher. One of the reasons is the general nature of the sector and the rules of the ETF and the underlying index that cause firms to be replaced. According to the NYSE Arca: Components will be removed from the index during the quarterly review if they fail any of the criteria below: (1) Current Market Capitalization is lower than $900 million (2) The Average Daily Traded Value for the past 3 Months is lower than $900,000 (3) The Current Last Traded Price is less than $1.00 In addition, various corporate actions may cause the stocks in the index to be substituted. As there has been M&A activity and various other corporate actions in the sector over the past year, the high turnover ratio is to be expected here. In terms of the ownership of the ETF, it is readily apparent that institutions and funds hold large holdings. While Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC ) holds 6.31% and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (NYSE: MS ) holds 8.81%, the big surprise holding is another ETF that we previously analyzed and recommended. The First Trust Dorsey Wright Focus 5 ETF (NASDAQ: FV ), holds 33.99% of the total shares in its ETF or 24.20% of the total assets. The ETF has performed well due to its allocation in FBT, among others. FBT will continue to attract institutional shareholders and advisory clientele who seek allocation to the Biotech sector, regardless of economic conditions. In terms of economic conditions, many consider Biotech as being within the Pharmaceutical and medical space and defensive. We tend to agree, yet the cost of capital for the industry is always a concern. With interest rates set to rise this may be an issue for those firms which tend to borrow heavily to fund R&D. As such, though we are impressed with the performance over the past year the ETF is not for the squeamish. It is noted above that the YTD performance has dropped 4.00% since the end of November. The sector and its holdings are not for investors who are looking for the short term. A dollar cost strategy may be appropriate for investors who are familiar (or not familiar) with the frequent market routs. In terms of FBT the year high on July 20,2015 was $132.21 representing at that time a 28.96% YTD return, while the year low of $64.08 set on August 24,2015, after the Asia sell off, represented a loss of -37.49% YTD at that time. Overall, the volatility of the sector has not dissuaded institutional investors, (or speculators for that matter) from participating in this ETF or the sector. As the second largest biotech ETF, after the iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF (NASDAQ: IBB ) it continues to represent an attractive vehicle to participate in a sector that will continue to produce new drugs and redevelop existing treatments. We are a strong buy on this ETF into 2016 and beyond.

Is The Time Ripe For 50% Currency Hedged ETFs?

The global currency world has been on a tumultuous ride on central banks’ comments. The basic perception has been that the currency-hedged developed market ETFs will be on a roller-coaster ride since the second half of 2015 and in 2016 on divergent economic policies between the U.S. and others. So far, the investing trend has paralleled the belief as the greenback peaked to multi-year highs on looming policy tightening and currencies like euro and yen plunged on the ongoing QE measures. However, the trend was volatile at the start of December. While the Fed repeatedly put stress on a slower rate hike trajectory once the action is taken, the European Central Bank (ECB) – widely viewed as stepping up its QE measure – fell short of expectations. The ECB maintained the amount of monthly government bonds purchase at €60 billion. Additionally, the cut in deposit rates (by 10 bps) was also below the expected 0.15-0.20%. Thanks to a less dovish ECB, the common currency euro surged and logged its largest one-day gain against the greenback in over six years. The CurrencyShares Euro Trust ETF (NYSEARCA: FXE ) was up 3.2% on December 3. Across the pond, the Fed is preparing for a rate hike this month but is expected to apply a petite and slow hike which in turn can cut some strength from the greenback. Now that the oil price is due for more pain ahead with OPEC members agreeing on pumping up more oil, global inflation will remain for a few more months. This leaves the Fed with no option other than taking the policy tightening issue easy. After all, the U.S. economy is yet to meet a key Fed agenda of 2% inflation. Plus, the greenback has advanced over 7% so far this year (as of December 7, 2015). The U.S. dollar ETF, the PowerShares DB US Dollar Bull ETF (NYSEARCA: UUP ), is now just 3.2% down from the 52-week high price, indicating less upside potential from the current level. All in all, though the greenback is likely to remain strong ahead and euro is likely to weaken, volatility is likely to crop up now and then. In the last five sessions (as of December 7, 2015), UUP lost over 1.3% while FXE gained about 2.4%. This might put the currency hedging global investing at risk. Notably, currency hedging is a beneficial technique when the USD is strengthening relative to the concerned foreign currency. But investors would incur losses on repatriating their foreign income while the USD is falling. In this backdrop, a 50% hedged ETF can be an intriguing option to minimize risks and sail through all kind of market dynamics. Below we highlight three ETFs that could be on watch in the coming days, if the U.S. dollar slips and other currencies strengthen on central bank policies and economic developments. These funds may guard your portfolio from extreme situations and will likely deliver moderate returns. IQ 50 Percent Hedged FTSE International ETF (NYSEARCA: HFXI ) The fund follows the FTSE Developed ex North America 50% Hedged to USD Index and has amassed about $41.6 million in assets after debuting in July. The fund charges 35 bps in fees. The fund added over 2.1% in the last three months (as of December 7, 2015) (see all broad developed world ETFs here). IQ 50 Percent Hedged FTSE Europe ETF (NYSEARCA: HFXE ) The $37.6-million fund tracks the FTSE Developed Europe 50% Hedged to USD Index. The fund charges 45 bps in fees and was up about 1% in the last three months (as of December 7, 2015). IQ 50 Percent Hedged FTSE Japan ETF (NYSEARCA: HFXJ ) The $26.6-million fund looks to follow the FTSE Japan 50% Hedged to USD Index. The fund charges 45 bps in fees and gained over 7% in the last three months. Original Post

Backtesting Smarter Beta: Do We Have A Winner?

Summary The smarter-beta strategy uses three smart-beta ETFs as sources for an investable portfolio that provides exposure to three risk-premia factors. The factors are low volatility, momentum and quality. In this article I report on a backtest of the strategy using data from the inception of the youngest of the three ETFs. I started an exercise to mine three of iShares smart-beta ETFs for investment ideas. My idea was to use the portfolios of the funds, which are designed to provide broad exposure to one of the risk-premia factors, as a source for devising and investable portfolio that provides exposure to all three factors. The three ETFs I selected are: iShares MSCI USA Minimum Volatility ETF (NYSEARCA: USMV ) iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF (NYSEARCA: MTUM ) iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF (NYSEARCA: QUAL ) These are, as the names tell us, focused on low-volatility, momentum and quality factors. I refer you to my first article on the topic where I describe the methods and concepts in detail ( A Quest For The Smartest Beta ). Briefly, I compare the portfolios of the funds and select the equity positions that are held by all three. This is illustrated in the Venn Diagram to the right. I combine the stocks that overlap the portfolio holdings of all three funds in an equal-weighted portfolio. Readers have pointed out that I’m neglecting at least two important factors, value and size, which are also cards in the iShares ETF smart-beta deck. I looked into this ( Expanding The Smart Beta Filter: Does It Help? ) and concluded they offered no advantage over the three I selected. This was based on a very limited data set as I’ll describe, however. With access to earlier cycles for the funds’ portfolios it may be worth the effort to revisit this question as well. One feature of these funds is that their indexes are rebalanced twice annually, on the last business days of May and November. Until today, I was unable to do any sort of backtest. So, when I first introduced the concept in November I used the portfolio that was put into effect in June 2015 and looked at returns over the five-month period. At the end of November, I published a rebalanced portfolio ( Momentum, Quality and Low Volatility: Continuing the Quest for Smarter Beta ) and results for the full six-months of the ETFs’ rebalancing cycle. Those results were highly encouraging. Each time I wrote on the topic, I lamented not having access to historical portfolios for the funds to further explore performance. Then a sharp-eyed reader added a comment pointing out where those data were available (thanks again, ipaul66 ). So, I’ve downloaded holdings data going back to end-of-November rebalance for the inception of QUAL, the youngest of the three funds, in August 2013. I’ve also shown that the three funds together in an equal-weighted portfolio turned in a solid performance record vs. the broader market represented by the S&P 500 TR index (^SPXTR). I’ve included that portfolio in this analysis as a comparison. The backtest covers two years, still woefully short, but a huge improvement on six months. There are four six-month cycles with complete results. The most recent cycle began on the last day of November, so we have nothing meaningful from that as yet. CAGR Let’s start with the big result: CAGRs for each of the strategies. This table shows CAGRs for each six-month cycle for the smarter-beta portfolio (MQLV), the S&P 500 TR index, and the equal-weighted ETFs (3ETFsEqWt). Both the MQLV and the three ETFs beat the S&P 500. Only for the Dec 2013 through May 2014 cycle does the broader market outperform. Commutative and Cycle Returns The next chart shows cumulative return on $100,000 invested in the three strategies on December 1, 2013 through the November 29, 2015. (click to enlarge) And, for $100,000 invested at the beginning of each semi-annual rebalancing cycle: (click to enlarge) Conclusions and Caveats These results do support and validate the earlier finding. The smarter-beta strategy appears to be an effective filter that can add meaningful alpha relative to the broader market, or to equal-weighting the three source ETFs. I caution, however, that this is based on only two years’ history, and for a quarter of that period the smarter-beta strategy sharply under performed. The model is equal-weighted which may not be optimal and weighting needs a closer look. Having this two-year data set will give me the opportunity to explore other weighting strategies. This analysis makes no allowance for trading costs. One can often buy an S&P 500 index fund in a commission-free ETF. The three-ETF portfolio requires at most twice-yearly rebalancings for modest cost. The MQLV portfolios comprised 12 to 19 positions over the two years, so trading costs are significant, especially for smaller portfolios. If I introduce a 0.25% slippage factor (which allows for trading costs but not spread costs) the CAGR falls to 15.46% for a $100,000 portfolio, still beating the S&P 500 handily, but it does illustrate the cost of turnover. For a smaller portfolio, a larger slippage factor is required. For a $10K initial investment, 32 annual trades at $8/trade would be 2.56% and that much friction drops the CAGR to $10.17%. Even assuming the best interpretation of these results, the strategy generates substantial turnover and is only suitable for reasonably large portfolios (or for those who have accounts that provide free trades). I mention this because I have had commenters suggest they might try the strategy with only a small number of shares for each position. For the investor who is not interested in the turnover and trading this strategy will require, the equal-weighted portfolio of the three ETFs is an attractive alternative. That strategy did not turn in a single negative cycle, more than can be said for either the smart-beta portfolio or the S&P 500. Trading costs are modest with a maximum of 12 trades a year for the semi-annual rebalance, but even that may not be necessary as the ETFs do not vary much from on another over the course of a year or two. Comparing the two-year CAGR of 11.68% to 9.58% for the broad market would seem to indicate that the strategies being used in the MSCI indexes do in fact capture alpha from exposure to the risk-premia factors.