Tag Archives: investment

For The Love Of The Game: How To Keep Learning In The Market

Summary This is a philosophical piece intended to help young aspiring analysts. I will share my mistakes and lessons learned on the buy side. I will briefly discuss Cheniere Energy. This is a philosophical piece with two goals in mind: To inspire young aspiring analysts, and to share the multitude of career mistakes that I made. With the benefit of hindsight and reflection, I know others can benefit from my self-inflicted missteps. Given the significant amount of time I spend engaged on the Seeking Alpha website, I am noticing more and more talented authors. For some of the folks more junior in their careers ascents or for aspiring analysts trying to make it into the research arena, I think my experience and unique observations may benefit them. So, in the spirit of trying to help others, I sincerely hope to pass the baton and impart some insights that may benefit them as they progress in their careers. The Power of Mentors For context, I will provide my brief background and relevant professional investment research experience. During my undergraduate days, I attended the Isenberg School of Management at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. I was passionate about investing since middle school, as my dad sparked my intellectual curiosity. While at UMass, I gained access to an alumni list and then emailed as many people in the industry as possible. After getting a response, I would then call them, usually early in the morning, before their hectic day’s beginning. So here I was talking quietly in the dorm room hallways (trying not to wake up my floor at 7 am). As I had virtual no industry contacts, this was the best strategy. However, long on confidence, I was convinced that I was the next up-and-coming star analyst and I only needed to be discovered. From that point, I would land a junior analyst role. Not only I was incredibly naïve, but I had an exalted sense of self, which was unwarranted and unhelpful. However, nice alumni looked past this misplaced arrogance and focused on my passion. Through these calls, I was able to connect with many smart and talented UMass alumni who were actual market participants on the buy side. One individual was, and still is, a portfolio manager at prestigious Wellington Management. He is piercingly bright, very generous with his time, and passionate about helping UMass alumni learn about investing. Although I haven’t been in as close contact with him lately, he was extremely influential in my progress and evolution as an investor. I have one other mentor, whom I originally connected with on LinkedIn in 2004. This was a period between jobs, and I was still questing for that elusive foothold on the buy side. This individual is currently an equity portfolio manager at Alpine Funds. Yes, he has the shiny credentials of a top MBA and CFA, but more importantly, he is a great investor and extremely hardworking. He and I have been friends through email since 2004, and we constantly trade investment ideas via email. Over the course of thousands of email exchanges, my writing and thought process continued to improve. Specific investment lessons from these two mentors For context, my mentor at Wellington is a portfolio manager at Wellington, and manages international equity growth funds with approximately $4 billion in assets under management (AUM). Over the course of our friendship and multiple email exchanges, he explained (using the Socratic method) how growth stocks work. He said that the only thing that matters is consensus earnings estimates. In order to take a position in any equity, you need to qualitatively and quantitatively understand how the market arrived at current consensus estimates. If, and only if, you deeply study the company and build your high-level models that capture the major drivers of revenue and earnings can you have an opinion. Never, never, never have a strong opinion on a stock unless you have really done the work. The fastest way to get dinged during an interview on the buy side is to come across long on opinion and short on analysis. It is always better to say “Here is what I have read, and here is how I think about it, but perhaps I am missing certain angles.” It is much better to informed and humble than arrogant and overly confident, especially when speaking with actual market participants. He then taught me that many people fall into the trap that a stock is overvalued because it has a high P/E ratio compared to the market or its sector. With the supercomputers of today, crunching ratios is a waste of time, as it is fully reflected in the stock price, given that the market is very efficient at incorporating actual events. Again, you have to understand consensus estimates better than the Street. If your model and work are materially different from the consensus, only then should you make a bet. For a concrete example, over the course of a few emails, he walked me first-hand through why in mid-2003 Research in Motion, now BlackBerry (NASDAQ: BBRY ), was his largest holding. I think BBRY’s stock ultimately ended up increasing by 5,000% from 2003 to 2007. If any reader cares to do some searching on Google, they will find that the vast majority of then-leading experts thought BBRY was going to zero. They saw that they were losing money and also saw the company’s cash burn, and erroneously assumed that BlackBerry had nothing noteworthy in its pipeline. Now, my mentor will freely admit that he happened to have met with management (that is a major advantage of being a professional money manger – access to management teams to kick tires). During his visit to BBRY’s corporate HQ, he was able to work out first-hand how technologically advanced the company’s products were, and envisioned their appeal to chief technology officers in the Fortune 500. He also understood the huge addressable market, the potential margins on the handsets, the security features of its product, and that BBRY was really a great software company. Had I known then what I know now, I would be retired at age 35 if I had put on a concentrated long bet on BBRY and simply held it for four years. Clearly, I wasn’t wise enough to understand that I was handed a lottery ticket with winning numbers on it. (click to enlarge) My mentor from Alpine Funds has also taught me a great deal. Once a new investor gets up to speed on the core blocking and tackling, like being able to read financial statements and the basics of accounting, the best way to make money is to develop a great imagination. Stock prices will rise or fall past on their future cash flow and revenue growth relative to consensus estimates. For another vivid example, in 2004, this mentor of mine walked me through his largest holding in his personal account, Silver Wheaton (NYSE: SLW ). If I recall, SLW was then a $4 stock. He explain to me that he was very bullish on silver, and that this was the best vehicle to participate in silver’s ascent. He explained how silver was a by-product, and mining is extremely CAPEX-intensive, so producers who are targeting gold or copper are willing to sell their silver by-product production (or silver streams) for an upfront payment and then for a low price of $4 per ounce. The producers would then use the upfront payment to fund their CAPEX. Silver Wheaton eventually traded as high as $50 in May 2011, though it was a bumpy ride, with the stock dropping down to $2.50 during the 2009 equity crash. My mentor also emphasized the importance of being willing to take a contrarian stance if you have enough conviction in your idea. When he was traveling the hedge fund circuit, as he had two stints as a hedge fund analyst, he learned the importance of managing your downside risk, but also that betting big when the risk/reward was greatly in your favor. Although he was capable enough, he determined that the hedge fund world didn’t suit his personality and investment process. This is my long-winded way of stating that mentors are invaluable. They will encourage you, push you, and if you put in the effort, they will help you become a better investor. I am still in constant contact with my friend at Alpine Funds. I distinctly remember when he once told me, “My wish for you is that you greatly surpass my as an analyst.” That illustrated to me that he was invested in my success, and he was humble enough and had had the benefit of mentors while he was in his formative stages. Don’t get into fights with your boss My next piece of advice is that if you do make it to the buy side, know your role and keep your ego in check. Although the barriers to entry are very steep, just because you made the team doesn’t mean you can’t get cut. Despite an insatiable curiosity and undeniable passion for investing, my ego and poor semantics while expressing my investment ideas wrote proverbial checks that I couldn’t cash. The collective bill came due when I couldn’t meet the proverbial margin call. My five years of solid performance and exemplary annual reviews were marred by aggressive and arrogant interactions with senior analysts. No one want to be told they are wrong and that their thesis is wrong, especially from a 29-year old. You can’t tell your boss that you think you are a better investor than him. This is a career-limiting move, trust me. So the takeaway is that if you can surmount the incredibly high barriers to entry, take it slow, listen, observe and ask questions. Investing isn’t like the NFL, it isn’t a pure meritocracy. You have to work hard, learn, be likeable and keep your head down. If folks sense that you are not a team player (however misplaced this label may be), your career at that shop is effectively over. Know yourself Beside the fact that I didn’t have the right temperament for Liberty Mutual, you have to know yourself. Reflecting upon my five years at Liberty, I probably knew it wasn’t the right cultural fit in year three. However, don’t do the impulsive Jerry Maguire letter and then quit, as this is terrible career mistake that has to be explained away in future interviews. There are exceptions, but the buy side generally requires a CFA, Ivy League education (at least on the equity side), lots of networking, and even more luck to find your foothold. Although I made it into the industry, I only advanced to the bottom rungs of the ladder. There is an alternative pathway. There are excellent open source sites like Seeking Alpha, and different ways to make a living. However, this is the path less traveled, and it will invariably take years of building your brand, developing a portfolio of great research as evidence, and getting the marketing aspect right. There are members of the Seeking Alpha community who have successfully done this, so they would be a much better resources. I only write articles in my free time as a hobby. The Power of Redemption Moving along, let me power down my philosophical side of my brain, and let’s talk about one of my recent investment ideas written here on Seeking Alpha that seems to be playing out. I want to specifically highlight two investment pieces that I wrote recently on Cheniere Energy (NYSEMKT: LNG ). The point of bringing this up is that through the comments section of my first article, the Seeking Alpha community inspired me to improve upon my first article that some labeled incomplete. I viewed this as constructive criticism and an opportunity to dig deeper and write a follow-up article. Incidentally, my original thesis seems to be playing out, as Mr. Chanos disclosed a new short position in shares of Cheniere. However, I am not spiking the football on the one-yard line, as the stock has now become a battleground stock between the bulls, including investing greats like Seth Klarman and Carl Icahn, and the bears, like Jim Chanos. I have done a lot of research on the company and have shared my bearish view on the site. Again, I’m not writing to gloat, but simply suggesting that if we are passionate about our craft, we can make good investment calls. Of course, the buy side has its advantages of access to management team and access to many research publications. However, with the power of Google and some intellectual curiosity, you want produce compelling work. I can’t tell you the last time I read a sell side report. As a general rule, I completely ignore sell side research, as I like to do my own research. Moreover, when an idea finally works and it gets recognized by the market, it brings a great feeling of satisfaction and even redemption for hobbyists like me. To sum up Mr. Chanos’s bearish arguments: There will be massive global overcapacity in the LNG space. LNG is priced based on Brent prices, and Brent has collapsed from $110 to $50, so incremental new long-term supply agreements will be less lucrative. The industry is plagued by massive cost overruns (look at Chevron’s greenfield projects). Cheniere’s contracts aren’t sacrosanct. The company is way too promotional and has yet to sell any LNG. Its capital structure and executive compensation polices leave much to be desired. Concluding Thoughts Investing is more of an art than a science once you understand the fundamentals. For aspiring analysts: Find great mentors, don’t get in fights with your boss and know yourself. Investing is an extremely humbling pursuit; therefore, savor your victories, because they can be fleeting. Good luck, and thanks for reading. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within 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.

SCZ: Do You Need Some International Small-Cap Companies For Your Portfolio?

Summary SCZ has over 1500 holdings across the globe which appear to give it great internal diversification. The term “across the globe” might be overly optimistic since over 50% of the holdings are in two locations. The weakness for SCZ is that SCHC and VSS both offer materially lower expense ratios and more holdings for enhanced diversification. Since SCZ has a beta higher than 1, it has to be expected to generate fairly substantial returns. On top of the high beta raising required returns, SCZ also needs to be able to beat out SCHC and VSS to justify the high expense ratio. One of the funds I analyzed for exposure to international markets is the iShares MSCI EAFE Small-Cap ETF (NYSEARCA: SCZ ). I’ll be performing a substantial portion of my analysis along the lines of modern portfolio theory, so my goal is to find ways to minimize costs while achieving diversification to reduce my risk level. By reducing risk at the portfolio level investors can get their best shot at producing alpha. Expense Ratio The expense ratio for SCZ is .40% for both gross and net expense ratio. That may not seem bad for international small-cap equity and an ETF with 1555 holdings. However, investors should be aware that they also have options in the Schwab International Small-Cap Equity ETF (NYSEARCA: SCHC ) and the Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US Small-Cap ETF (NYSEARCA: VSS ). SCHC has an expense ratio of .18% and 1645 holdings. VSS has an expense ratio of .19% and 3352 holdings. It should be no surprise that I see SCHC and VSS as the strong front runners for this kind of portfolio exposure. In the interest of full disclosure, while I don’t have a position in any of these ETFs yet, I do have a pending limit-buy order on SCHC. That order is quite a ways under the current share prices and is only intended to activate if share prices start falling hard again. Geography The geography of the exposure is important in considering international equity options. The chart below demonstrates the exposure for SCZ. Japan and the United Kingdom only represent over 50% of the market capitalization of the holdings in SCZ. I’d like to see more exposure around the globe. This is international and I’m okay with excluding China since I’ve been bearish on their market for months, but I’d like to see a few more continents included. Aside from the concentration being so heavily focused on the top two options, I don’t see any other problems there. Sector Exposures The following chart has the sector exposures within the ETF: I’m not seeing this as a huge problem, but it seems interesting that the exposure is so heavily focused on a few categories again. If it were reasonably possible, I’d like to see better diversification across the industries as well as across the globe. International ETFs are usually plagued by having fairly high levels of volatility and more diversification within the sectors might reduce that volatility some. On the other hand, when financial markets exhibit significant stress factors, it is common for correlation levels to increase throughout international markets so even more diversification in the holdings might not make a material difference in the volatility. Building the Portfolio This hypothetical portfolio has a moderately aggressive allocation for the middle aged investor. Only 30% of the total portfolio value is placed in bonds and a third of that bond allocation is given to high yield bonds. This portfolio is probably taking on more risk than would be appropriate for many retiring investors since the volatility on equity can be so high. However, the diversification within the portfolio is fairly solid. Long term treasuries work nicely with major market indexes and I’ve designed this hypothetical portfolio without putting in the allocation I normally would for REITs on the assumption that the hypothetical portfolio is not going to be tax exempt. Hopefully investors will be keeping at least a material portion of their investment portfolio in tax advantaged accounts. The portfolio assumes frequent rebalancing which would be a problem for short term trading outside of tax advantaged accounts unless the investor was going to rebalance by adding to their positions on a regular basis and allocating the majority of the capital towards whichever portions of the portfolio had been underperforming recently. (click to enlarge) A quick rundown of the portfolio The two bond funds in the portfolio are the PIMCO 0-5 Year High Yield Corporate Bond Index ETF (NYSEARCA: HYS ) for high yield shorter term debt and the iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: TLT ) for longer term treasury debt. TLT should be useful for the highly negative correlation it provides relative to the equity positions. HYS on the other hand is attempting to produce more current income with less duration risk by taking on some credit risk. The Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR ETF (NYSEARCA: XLP ) is used to make the portfolio overweight on consumer staples with a goal of providing more stability to the equity portion of the portfolio. The iShares U.S. Utilities ETF (NYSEARCA: IDU ) is used to create a significant utility allocation for the portfolio to give it a higher dividend yield and help it produce more income. I find the utility sector often has some desirable risk characteristics that make it worth at least considering for an overweight representation in a portfolio. The core of the portfolio comes from simple exposure to the S&P 500 via the SPDR S&P 500 Trust ETF (NYSEARCA: SPY ), though I would suggest that investors creating a new portfolio and not tied into an ETF for that large domestic position should consider the alternative by Vanguard’s Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (NYSEARCA: VOO ) which offers similar holdings and a lower expense ratio. I have yet to see any good argument for not using or another very similar fund as the core of a portfolio. In this piece I’m using SPY because some investors with a very long history of selling SPY may not want to trigger the capital gains tax on selling the position and thus choose to continue holding SPY rather than the alternatives with lower expense ratios. Risk Contribution The risk contribution category demonstrates the amount of the portfolio’s volatility that can be attributed to that position. Despite TLT being fairly volatile and tying SPY for the second highest volatility in the portfolio, it actually produces a negative risk contribution because it has a negative correlation with most of the portfolio. It is important to recognize that the “risk” on an investment needs to be considered in the context of the entire portfolio. To make it easier to analyze how risky each holding would be in the context of the portfolio, I have most of these holdings weighted at a simple 10%. Because of TLT’s heavy negative correlation, it receives a weighting of 20% and as the core of the portfolio SPY was weighted as 50%. Correlation The chart below shows the correlation of each ETF with each other ETF in the portfolio and with the S&P 500 . Blue boxes indicate positive correlations and tan box indicate negative correlations. Generally speaking lower levels of correlation are highly desirable and high levels of correlation substantially reduce the benefits from diversification. Conclusion SCZ is the most volatile investment in the portfolio when viewed in isolation as it has a volatility level of 18.7%. That problem is compounded by the high correlation between SCZ and the S&P 500. The combination leads SCZ to having a beta of 1.06% which is unfavorable. Under modern portfolio theory the only way to get risk adjusted returns on SCZ is for it to be outperforming the S&P 500 over the long run since it is increasing portfolio volatility. Will it outperform the S&P 500? I have no idea. The better question would probably be: “Will it outperform SCHC and VSS?” In that regard, I’m skeptical. It certainly could happen but SCHC and VSS have an advantage from having materially lower expense ratios which allow more of the returns to reach shareholders. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within 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. Additional disclosure: Information in this article represents the opinion of the analyst. All statements are represented as opinions, rather than facts, and should not be construed as advice to buy or sell a security. Ratings of “outperform” and “underperform” reflect the analyst’s estimation of a divergence between the market value for a security and the price that would be appropriate given the potential for risks and returns relative to other securities. The analyst does not know your particular objectives for returns or constraints upon investing. All investors are encouraged to do their own research before making any investment decision. Information is regularly obtained from Yahoo Finance, Google Finance, and SEC Database. If Yahoo, Google, or the SEC database contained faulty or old information it could be incorporated into my analysis.

4 Zacks Buy-Ranked Technology Mutual Funds

More often than not the technology sector is likely to report above par earnings than other sectors as the demand for technology and innovation remains high. However, technology stocks are considered to be more volatile than other sector specific stocks in the short run. In order to minimize this short term volatility almost all tech funds adopt a growth management style with a focus on strong fundamentals and a relatively higher investment horizon. Investors having an above par appetite for risk and a fairly longer investment horizon should park their savings in these funds. Below we will share with you 4 buy-rated technology mutual funds . Each has earned either a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #1 (Strong Buy) or a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #2 (Buy) as we expect these mutual funds to outperform their peers in the future. The USAA Science & Technology Fund (MUTF: USSCX ) seeks capital growth over the long run. USSCX invests a lion’s share of its assets in equity securities of companies that are believed to gain from technological development and advancement. USSCX may invest a maximum of half of its assets in securities of companies located in foreign lands. The USAA Science & Technology fund has a three-year annualized return of 20%. USSCX has an expense ratio of 1.24% as compared to category average of 1.47%. The Northern Technology Fund (MUTF: NTCHX ) invests a major portion of its assets in securities of companies primarily involved in technology sector. NTCHX invests a minimum of one-fourth share of its assets in securities of companies engaged in manufacturing and selling of computer hardware or software and peripheral products. NTCHX invests in securities of companies irrespective of their market capitalizations. NTCHX may also participate in IPO markets. The Northern Technology fund has a three-year annualized return of 12.1%. As of June 2015, NTCHX held 66 issues with 5.32% invested in Apple Inc (NASDAQ: AAPL ). The Fidelity Select Technology Portfolio (MUTF: FSPTX ) seeks long-term capital growth. FSPTX invests a large chunk of its assets primarily involved in manufacturing, development and distribution of products and services related to technology sector. FSPTX focuses on acquiring common stocks of companies located throughout the globe. FSPTX considers factors including financial strength and economic condition before investing in securities. The Fidelity Select Technology Portfolio is non-diversified fund and has a three-year annualized return of 11.3%. Charlie Chai is the fund manager and has managed FSPTX since 2007. The Matthews Asia Science and Technology Fund (MUTF: MATFX ) invests a majority of its assets in securities of technology companies located in Asia. According to MATFX’s advisors, companies that earn maximum share of their revenue by carrying out operations related to technology domain are considered as technology companies. MATFX primarily invests in common and preferred stocks of companies. The Matthews Asia Science and Technology Investor fund has a three-year annualized return of 11.8%. As of June 2015, MATFX held 57 issues with 9.08% invested in Baidu Inc. (NASDAQ: BIDU ). Link to the original post on Zacks.com Share this article with a colleague