Tag Archives: investment

Using Attribution Analysis To Gain Perspective On Actively Managed Funds

Much has been written about the mass exodus of investors from large-cap actively managed funds over the last several years. For 2014 alone, despite a relatively strong one-year return from the group (+10.72%), investors redeemed some $34.5 billion from actively managed large-cap funds, while they padded the coffers of passively managed funds (+$17.4 billion). Nonetheless, the actively managed large-cap funds group is still the largest group in the equity universe, with $1.6 trillion under management, while its passively managed brethren (excluding S&P 500 Index funds) have a little over $335 billion under management. Although on average passively managed funds have recently outpaced their actively managed counterparts, there are certain times when actively managed funds do indeed outperform. When bull markets start to lose steam and stock picking comes back into vogue or when markets are in a funk, research has shown that actively managed funds are often poised to post better returns than their passively managed counterparts. Year to date through June 30, 2015, in the current sideways market actively managed large-cap funds (+1.95%) have outperformed passively managed (pure index) large-cap funds (+1.33%). Since the performance of active and passive strategies runs in cycles, it’s important to set expectations for clients. To help explain performance trends of actively managed funds vis-à-vis their benchmarks, it’s useful to dive deeper into portfolio practice. For the remainder of this segment we’ll focus on Lipper’s Large-Cap Core Funds (LCCE) classification using attribution-analysis tools. Attribution analysis gives us a way to assign performance qualities to the manager’s portfolio allocation choices (that is, under- or over-allocation to a particular industry, which is referred to as the allocation effect) and to the manager’s stock selection decisions (the selection effect) compared to the composition of the benchmark’s holdings. For 2014, ignoring the impact of expenses on returns, the average actively managed LCCE fund (+13.13%) underperformed the S&P 500 daily reinvested composite (+13.65%) by 52 basis points (bps). In our initial deep dive we note that the average actively managed LCCE fund lagged the benchmark by 2 bps because of allocation effect, while stock selection led to underperformance of 50 bps. In particular, an over-allocation to poorly performing stocks in the finance sector (e.g., Genworth Financial (NYSE: GNW ), Standard Charter ( OTCPK:SCBFF ), and Ocwen Financial (NYSE: OCN )) weighed heavily on active LCCE funds compared with the benchmark, with an economic sector selection effect of minus 51 bps. On the flipside a slight overweighting in consumer discretionary stocks with superior stock returns within the subgroup compared to the benchmark helped the average actively managed LCCE funds’ return, adding 29 bps to the total effect (allocation effect and selection effect combined). However, so far in 2015-and again ignoring expenses-the average actively managed LCCE fund (+1.71%) has outpaced its benchmark (+1.19%) by 52 bps (+28 bps allocation effect and +23 bps selection effect). The average actively managed LCCE fund was slightly over-allocated to healthcare stocks compared to the S&P 500 Index’s allocation, boosting the comparative return 5 bps, while the average portfolio manager’s stock-picking abilities in this sideways market added some 9 bps to the overall return. (click to enlarge) Source: Lipper, a Thomson Reuters company In the analysis above fund expenses are not included in order to provide a true apples-to-apples comparison. This analysis is based on portfolio construction, comparing allocation and stock picking impacts before the consideration of expenses, which are generally easy to assess. Once the trend of the group is found, it is an easy mathematical exercise to slot in expenses. This type of review helps us isolate the pros and cons of various fund groups or individual funds. Attribution analysis can be used as well to highlight funds with superior and inferior performance within a classification, and it can provide a clear explanation of why those findings occurred. As an example, we have identified one of the best performing funds in the LCCE classification over the one-year period ended June 30, 2015, and have run it through attribution analysis to find out how it achieved its outperformance. While this is not a substitution for risk-adjusted return analysis, it provides one more piece of the puzzle, helping us offer detailed explanations to our clients. The following is provided as an example only and is not intended to be a recommendation of any sort. PNC Large Cap Core Fund (MUTF: PLEAX ) posted a one-year return before expenses of 12.66%, while its benchmark-the S&P 500-returned 7.36%. According to attribution analysis, the fund had an allocation effect of 1.28% and a selection effect of 4.02%. While the PNC fund was slightly under-allocated to the information technology sector, providing an allocation effect of minus 0 bps, the portfolio manager’s stock selection within the sector was the primary factor of outperformance, providing a selection effect of 2.51%, with significantly higher weightings to Skyworks Solutions (NASDAQ: SWKS ) and NXP Semiconductors (NASDAQ: NXPI ) being big contributors for the period. Equally, a lower allocation to the underperforming energy sector during the year compared to the benchmark helped the fund mitigate losses to its portfolio, adding 75 bps to the allocation effect. Another, perhaps more recognizable, example is American Funds Investment Company of America (MUTF: AIVSX ) . The fund posts a one-year return of 4.71%, while its benchmark chalks up a 7.36% return. Attribution analysis shows the fund had a negative allocation effect of 1.03% and a negative selection effect of 1.62%. While the fund’s heavier weighting in Merck & Company (NYSE: MRK ) placed a 49-bp drag on the portfolio, it was under-allocated to the healthcare sector compared to its benchmark, tagging on an additional 94 bps of drag from that sector alone. In the passive versus actively managed portfolio debate there are times when one approach is better than the other. Knowing that time can be difficult, so steering clients to both actively and passively managed products can often be the right decision. Providing examples of when certain sectors are out of favor, when markets are flat, or when the manager is truly providing alpha can be shown using attribution analysis, which supports the inclusion of actively managed products. While passive proponents often give the nod to actively managed funds in the less efficient fund groups (emerging markets, small-caps, and municipals), as shown above attribution analysis and good research can help ferret out some hidden gems, even in well-covered, widely held classifications. Editor’s Note: This article discusses one or more securities that do not trade on a major U.S. exchange. Please be aware of the risks associated with these stocks.

Companhia de Saneamento Basico do Estado de Sao Paulo-SABESP’s (SBS) Q2 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Companhia de Saneamento Basico do Estado de Sao Paulo-SABESP (NYSE: SBS ) Q2 2015 Earnings Conference Call August 18, 2015 01:00 PM ET Executives Rui Affonso – CFO and IR Officer Mario Arruda Sampaio – Head of Capital Markets and IR Analysts Carlos Remeika – Covalis Capital Michael Gaugler – Janney Montgomery Scott Operator Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. At this time, we would like to welcome everyone to SABESP’s conference call to discuss its results for the second quarter of 2015. The audio for this conference is being broadcast simultaneously through the Internet in the website, www.sabesp.com.br. In that same address, you can also find the slide show presentation available for download. [Operator Instructions] Before proceeding, let me mention that forward-looking statements are being made under the Safe Harbor of the Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1996. Forward-looking statements are based on the beliefs and assumptions of SABESP’s management and on information currently available to the company. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of performance. They involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions because they relate to future events and, therefore, depend on circumstances that may or may not occur in the future. Investors should understand that general economic conditions, industry conditions and other operating factors could also affect the future results of SABESP and could cause results to differ materially from those expressed in such forward-looking statements. Today with us, we have Mr. Rui Affonso, Chief Financial Officer and Investor Relations Officer; Mr. Mario Arruda Sampaio, Head of Capital Markets and Investor Relations; and Mr. Marcelo Miyagui, Head of Accounting. Now, I’ll turn the conference over to Mr. Arruda Sampaio. Sir, you may begin your conference. Mario Arruda Sampaio Okay. Thank you and again good afternoon, everybody for one more earnings conference call. We have a nine slide presentation today to discuss the second quarter of 2015 and as already mentioned, after that, we will open for the Q&A session. Let’s start on the slide three. Here, we show the company’s billed water and sewage volume, which fell 7.5% between second quarter last year and second quarter this year. This is due to the decline in water availability and consequently the measures adopted since February 2014 to continue supplying the population in the Metro region of Sao Paulo on an ongoing basis. As a result of the water crisis, there was also a substantial decline in water production. Volume was 14.6% down in the quarter and 18.1% down in the first six months of this year. On the next slide, on four, we will discuss our financial results. Net operating revenue increased 2.5% compared to last year second quarter. Excluding construction revenue, net operating revenue decreased 7.6%. This is due to the granting of bonuses and the 7.5% reduction in total billed volume as we mentioned in the previous slide. The decrease was mitigated by the application of the contingency tariff and the application of the repositioning tariff index of 6.5% since December 2014, which you all are already aware and familiar with and plus the 15.2% tariff increase effective since June and impacting only 1.5% in this quarter. I would like also to remind you that this last tariff increase includes a 6.9% increase due to the extraordinary tariff revision and the balance to the 15.2% is the ordinary annual tariff adjustment to inflation, which happened in April. Cost and selling, administrative and construction expenses increased 1.5% in the period. If we exclude construction costs, there was a decline actually of 11.2%. Adjusted EBITDA increased 14.3% to BRL756.6 million from BRL661.7 million in the same period of 2014. It’s worth noting that in the last 12 months adjusted EBITDA reached BRL3.4 billion. Yet, adjusted EBITDA margin came to 26.8% versus 24% in the second quarter of 2014. In fact, in the last 12 months, the EBITDA margins stood at 30.6%. If we exclude construction revenue and cost, the adjusted EBITDA margin came to 38.4% in the second quarter of 2014 against 31.2% in the second quarter of 2014 and 42.4% in the last 12 months. Net income totaled BRL337.3 million; that is 11.5% higher than in the same period of last year. On slide five we will move on to it and discuss the main variations in costs and expenses in relation to second quarter last year. I mentioned before in comparison with the second quarter cost expenses increased 1.5 and excluding construction cost, there was a decline of 11.2. This quarter all the cost items recorded were below second quarter 2014 except for tax expenses which increased by 0.7%. Depreciation and amortization went up by 27.6% and electric power cost which rose by 44.2%, something we had already anticipated to everybody that would happen last quarter. In the reduction side, it’s worth highlighting the decline of 74.4% in the general expenses, 23.2% in services and 4.1% in the payroll and related charges. The last, these three corresponding to a large share or the bulk share of our total costs. For more detailed information on our cost variation we ask you to refer to our detailed earnings release. Let’s move on to slide six, here we present the main variations in the items that affected our net income which totaled again BRL337 million. Net operating revenue increased by BRL68.8 million or 2.5%. Cost and expenses of gain including construction costs increased BRL35.3 million or 1.5%. Other operating revenues and expenses recorded a positive variation of BRL6.4 million. Net financial expenses, monetary restatement and foreign exchange variations fell BRL177 million in the period. Finally, income tax and social contribution increased BRL182 million when compared to second quarter 2014. Let’s move to the next slide, in fact the next two slides, seven and eight. We will update you on rainfall and water inflow into Cantareira Systems reservoirs. The year of 2015 has been recording irregular rainfall and extremely dry winter. In July, of the three main systems we use to supply water to the São Paulo Metro region, that is the Cantareira, Alto Tietê, and the Guarapiranga systems. Of these, Cantareira System was the only one that recorded below average rainfall. We are still operating in fact in the Cantareira with the first portion of the systems technical reserve and the other interesting thing is that today the Guarapiranga System has a relevant role in supplying water to the entire metro region of São Paulo. In fact, today again surpassing the Cantareira System. On slide eight, we can see that the water inflow into the Cantareira System reservoirs to 11.3 cubic meters per second in July which despite being low or below historical leverage, it’s almost the double of the volume recorded in July 2014 when water inflow came to only 6.4 cubic meters per second. In the first two weeks of August, water inflow has been lowering than in August last year. However, the month has not ended yet, we still have 13 days in front of us. It’s also important to note that August is usually a dry month, and reservoir levels are expected to decline in this period. In fact, for this month, SABESP received from the National Water Agency, ANA and the state electric, power and water department, it’s called DAEE an authorization to increase water withdrawal from the Cantareira System from 13.5 cubic meters per second in July to 14.5 cubic meters per second in August. This water withdraw increase by 1 additional cubic meter from the Cantareira System reflects the need to sphere the Alto Tietê System whose water inflow has been lower this year than last year. Well lets’ go through slide 9 and give you an update on the main measures SABESP has been adopting since February last year to continue uninterrupted water supply to the São Paulo metro region population despite relevant reduction in water traction for the reservoirs in the Cantareira System. The start we highlight that water production in the Cantareira System in July, 2015 over February 2014, when we introduced the measures to reduce consumption fell from 31.77 cubic meters per second to 13.51 cubic meters per second, in contraction of 58%. This means 18.3 cubic meters per second less withdraw since we adopted the consumption reduction measures. Specifically, on the measures, there are four main initiatives we adopted to offset this lower water traction and at the same time, maintain water availability to the metro regional São Paulo. They are, first, the reduction in consumption incurred by the Bonus Program responsible for approximately 18.6% of the savings. Second, the water transfers between the São Paulo metro region production systems currently responsible for 40.3% of this reduction. Third, operational maneuvers and investment in reducing water losses accounting for 36.6% of this reduction. And finally, the lower transfer to the cities of Guarulhos and São Caetano do Sul responsible for 4.5%. Specifically regarding the Bonus Program, we point out that the population is maintaining the adherence to the program, and in June and July, the percentage of population that has achieved reduction was 83%. In terms of water production for the entire, and that is, again, the entire metro region not only the Cantareira, in fact, the entire São Paulo metro region, this reduction came to 27% over February last year. In numbers, water production was at 71.4 cubic meters per second at the beginning of 2014 and closed in July this year at 51.9 cubic meters per second. Let’s go to slide 10 and present to you in detail the investments and execution and under development for the period between 2015 and 2017, which are vital to cope with the water crisis and bring more water security to the São Paulo metro region in the short, medium and long terms. The main objective of the investment being executed this year and next year is to increase the reservation capacity of the Guarapiranga and Alto Tietê System enabling the expansion of the production in these systems and the transfer of more water for the areas originally covered by the Cantareira System. In other words, reduce the dependence on the Cantareira System. For 2015, there will be an expansion of 6.5 cubic meters per second led by the interconnection between the Rio Grande and the Alto Tietê System. This investment when completed will transfer 4 cubic meters of water per second from the former to the later. As a result, more areas currently supplied by the Cantareira System will be able to receive water from the Alto Tietê System. The interconnection is the most relevant project we are carrying out in 2015 and approximately 80% of the work is already concluded and it should be delivered by the end of September. All in all, in the periods between 2015 and ’17, water availability and security will increase by up to 21 cubic meters per sec. Let’s move to slide ten, our last slide, where we’ll — we will discuss the Bonus program and the contingency tariffs. As already mentioned, the Bonus has been maintained an average adherence of around 83%, generating savings of 6.5 cubic meters per second in the entire metro region of Sao Paulo. So, this figure is for the entire metro region. Regarding the contingency tariff effective as of February 2015 and which objective is not to increase revenues but to reduce water demand by encouraging the rational use of water, of the total clients, 17% consumed above average in July this year. Considering that 77% [ph] of those — whose consumption was above average are in the minimum consumption range for social category both not subject to the contingency tariff, only 10% of all consumers actually paid higher tariff than this month, the month of July. As we mentioned in our earnings release, the impact of the Bonus on the Company’s revenue came to BRL231 million in the second quarter of 2015, while that of the contingency tariff totaled BRL123 million. It’s important to comment that the funds collected from the contingency tariffs are being used in the emergency work we mentioned before and expenses directly related to the cracks. Well, those were the remarks and now we are open for questions. Question-and-Answer Session Operator [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Carlos Remeika of Covalis Capital. Please go ahead. Carlos Remeika Hello, thank you for taking my questions. I have a few rather simple ones. I’d like to ask what you expect for tax rate for full-year 2015, given you’re making quite a bit of adjustments on a quarterly basis. And second question, I saw in the second quarter, BRL117 million decrease in provisions for lawsuits. It’s already been better in the Q1 and I was just wondering what would you expect for second half if it’s possible at least directionally to save, if it still continues to be lower year-over-year? Thank you. Mario Arruda Sampaio Okay. Carlos, just a second here. Carlos, Mario. Regarding the tax rate for this year, the only thing we can say without giving more guidance than we usually give is that we will continue working with 34%, okay. And no more detail we will give you because and again, it’s not part of what we do. On the next, on the provisions, what we can say is that there was a big provision of BRL70 million reversal of provision, which impacted specifically non-recurring this quarter. And again, we can’t comment and we are not – I mean, we don’t expect – we are not going to comment for the next quarter. I mean, we can’t say that there was BRL70 million reversal of this only provision of non-recurrence. Carlos Remeika Okay, thank you. Operator Our next question comes from Hujan Yang [ph] of Hummingbird Partners. Please go ahead. Unidentified Analyst Hi, thank you for taking my question. So I have a question about tariff adjustments. I understand there is a back and forth between SABESP and ARSESP on determining adjustments. Could you give us more color on how much leverage that we have had in determining the adjustment? So what usually causes the difference in weighing inputs between the two parties, for example considering the Q1 differences caused by the [indiscernible]. Rui Affonso Just a second, Hujan. Could you repeat the part on the different inputs, just that we can make sure we understand. Unidentified Analyst Sure. I was asking what cause the difference in weighing the input between the two parties, for example and currently I just pulled up the Q1 slides, there is the compensation period. Rui Affonso Okay, let me get that information to see if we can answer. Just a second. Mario Arruda Sampaio Okay, let me jump in. It’s Mario. First off, for the leverage negotiation, let’s put it this way, it’s authority — we have a discuss that is technical. They are very open for the discussions. We open and develop all the discussions on an agenda basis. So the leverage is just as usual, as you can see in the electricity sector. Although, the major company being regulated by the state regulatory agency is SABESP. If I understood the question, I mean, this would be the answer. As for the second point, the difference in input. We understand there are two issues. First, is the deferred implementation of the tariff revision, which should have happened in April last year and we SABESP postponed it to December. So that was deferred, but although deferred, we were granted an adjustment, a capitalized adjustment of that tariff implementation, so ultimately we implemented a 6.5 increase and not a 5.4, which was the original number. That is one. The other was the extraordinary tariff increase, the 15.21. The difference there is that we ask for compensation for the years of ’13, ’14, which were actual years plus expected ’15 and ’16 — forecasted ’15 and ’16 and ultimately what the regulator, he recognized to a great extent, the ‘13 and ‘14 and agreed upon the projections on the ’15 and ’16, but he decided to implement only the ’15 and ’16 and the ’13 and ’14, he will add that as a regulatory asset for the next tariff revision as of April 2017 for the next cycle. Okay? Unidentified Analyst I see. So just a quick question on that point, so does that mean that the 2013 and 2014 compensation period then amounts to the 7.02%? Mario Arruda Sampaio No, no, that’s the point. What happened this April was the ordinary, the normal tariff adjustment to inflation and the number there was something around 7%. I don’t have the — I don’t remember the specific number, we’re going to get it. So that was just inflation. The extraordinary tariff increase that we were granted was 6.9%. What we asked for was ‘13 and we’re getting the — I don’t have in the top of my mind was 13.2, 13.4 [ph] something like that. So the difference between what we ask for the extraordinary and what we got from the extraordinary is the deferred ‘13 and ‘14 revisions. So the ’15 rounding numbers, okay, about 7%, 6.9% is the actual revision, what was granted to us, and the difference to that is the inflation for the period. Okay. So what we did not get, we will get it in the next tariff cycle. So it was deferred to the next tariff cycle. Unidentified Analyst Okay. I got it. Thank you very much. Operator Our next question will come from Michael Gaugler of Janney Montgomery Scott. Please go ahead. Michael Gaugler Hello, everyone. Mario Arruda Sampaio Hi, Michael. Michael Gaugler Just one question, a couple of mine have already been answered. I noticed in the quarter cash fell pretty substantially and I’m wondering what was behind that and if you would anticipate that cash levels will remain about where they were at the end of the second quarter going forward? Mario Arruda Sampaio Okay. Michael, the reason that the cash fell this quarter substantially is basically because we anticipated that we paid down in anticipation a BRL500 million debt that was due in November this year. So we took the decision to anticipate, we prepaid, there was no fee for prepayment, it was already agreed to. So to that extent, we reduced our total debt for the quarter, albeit we did reduce the cash. Probably no, we won’t give you a guidance of where we see the cash flow at the end of the year, but we will come to market and we should, to some extent, replenish our cash availability. So can’t give you the number we’re working with, but I can anticipate that we should put our cash availability up from where it is today. Michael Gaugler Okay. Thanks, everyone. Mario Arruda Sampaio Thank you. Operator [Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from Kellyn Cailey of ZENA Investment Management. [ph] Please go ahead. Unidentified Analyst Hello, my question is on debt. Given that we’ve seen some depreciation of the Brazilian real since the quarter end and there are some forecasts out there that we could get to something like BRL4 per dollar by the end of the year. What are the levers that you have to deal with the impact that this will have on your debt balances and therefore your debt covenants to keep you in compliance? Mario Arruda Sampaio Okay, just a second there. Kellyn, first our debt exposure went up to 46.2%. Last quarter it was 45.8 and quarter before that 40, so it’s actually going up because of the exchange rate against the real as we all know. What are we going to do about it is, we’re not going to hedge our debt profile, it makes it inadequate to hedge. In addition to that the hedge would have no effect on our debt covenants. The way they are estimated, they did not take into account any hedging. S, again, in summary, it is very expensive. It doesn’t make sense for the debt profile and the cash flow and it doesn’t affect our debt covenant estimate, but we are obviously doing a lot. We have been in the process of going after receivables. We are going after — we have been able to increase tariff last December. We are just now in the discussion around an extraordinary tariff increase which has – which will be fully implemented, the 15% on the third quarter. So we have also done a lot of improvement in our cost structure. As you can see on the quarter to quarter basis, we’ve been able to reduce costs by 11.2%. So, yes, the covenants will continue fairly stressed, but I think we have many elements in front of us and actions we have taken that we are very well in a position to go over next quarters even if the exchange rate continues stressed as it is right now. Okay? Unidentified Analyst Okay, can I just ask a follow-up on the cost structure, so the cost reductions in the quarter, is that – do you view the run rate be 11% underlying decline as something that is sustainable as we move through the rest of the year? Mario Arruda Sampaio Again, that would be — giving you the specific would be giving you a guidance, but what we can tell you is that there are further actions we have taken that we expect coming in at some time. So again, it is hard to say exactly when, but we cannot tell you how much we expect. Okay? Unidentified Analyst Thank you. Operator Our next question comes from Doug Newton of The Wendakker Partnerships. [ph] Please go ahead. Unidentified Analyst Hi, good afternoon, Mario. The exploration of changes into the tariff structure, what impact might that have on the company’s total revenue. Mario Arruda Sampaio Doug, the effect is neutral. So it’s just how we cut the pie and not the size of the pie. Unidentified Analyst Got it, thank you. Operator [Operator Instructions] At this time, I’m showing no further questions. So, now I’d like to turn the conference back over to SABESP for their final remarks. Rui Affonso Okay everybody, thank you once more for participating of this call and we will obviously be back next quarter and hope to see you then. Thank you, bye, bye. Operator The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today’s presentation, you may now disconnect and have a great day. Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS. If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: transcripts@seekingalpha.com . Thank you!

Today’s Strong Competitive Wealth-Builder ETF Investment

Summary From a population of some 350 actively-traded, substantial, and growing ETFs this is a currently attractive addition to a portfolio whose principal objective is wealth accumulation by active investing. We daily evaluate future near-term price gain prospects for quality, market-seasoned ETFs, based on the expectations of market-makers [MMs], drawing on their insights from client order-flows. The analysis of our subject ETF’s price prospects is reinforced by parallel MM forecasts for each of the ETF’s ten largest holdings. Qualitative appraisals of the forecasts are derived from how well the MMs have foreseen subsequent price behaviors following prior forecasts similar to today’s. Size of prospective gains, odds of winning transactions, worst-case price drawdowns, and marketability measures are all taken into account. Today’s most attractive ETF Is the iShares U.S. Healthcare ETF (NYSEARCA: IYH ) . The investment seeks to track the investment results of an index composed of U.S. equities in the healthcare sector. The fund generally invests at least 90% of its assets in securities of the underlying index and in depositary receipts representing securities of the underlying index. It seeks to track the investment results of the Dow Jones U.S. Health Care Index (the “underlying index”), which measures the performance of the healthcare sector of the U.S. equity market. The fund is non-diversified. (Description from Yahoo Finance.) The fund currently holds assets of $2.68 billion and has had a YTD price return of +13.73%. Its average daily trading volume of 261,855 produces a complete asset turnover calculation in 64 days at its current price of $161.94. Behavioral analysis of market-maker hedging actions while providing market liquidity for volume block trades in the ETF by interested major investment funds has produced the recent past (6 month) daily history of implied price range forecasts pictured in Figure 1. Figure 1 (used with permission) The vertical lines of Figure 1 are a visual history of forward-looking expectations of coming prices for the subject ETF. They are NOT a backward-in-time look at actual daily price ranges, but the heavy dot in each range is the ending market quote of the day the forecast was made. What is important in the picture is the balance of upside prospects in comparison to downside concerns. That ratio is expressed in the Forecast Range Index [RI], whose number tells what percentage of the whole range lies below the then current price. Today’s Range Index is used to evaluate how well prior forecasts of similar RIs for this ETF have previously worked out. The size of that historic sample is given near the right-hand end of the data line below the picture. The current RI’s size in relation to all available RIs of the past 5 years is indicated in the small blue thumbnail distribution at the bottom of Figure 1. The first items in the data line are current information: The current high and low of the forecast range, and the percent change from the market quote to the top of the range, as a sell target. The Range Index is of the current forecast. Other items of data are all derived from the history of prior forecasts. They stem from applying a T ime- E fficient R isk M anagement D iscipline to hypothetical holdings initiated by the MM forecasts. That discipline requires a next-day closing price cost position be held no longer than 63 market days (3 months) unless first encountered by a market close equal to or above the sell target. The net payoffs are the cumulative average simple percent gains of all such forecast positions, including losses. Days held are average market rather than calendar days held in the sample positions. Drawdown exposure indicates the typical worst-case price experience during those holding periods. Win odds tells what percentage proportion of the sample recovered from the drawdowns to produce a gain. The cred(ibility) ratio compares the sell target prospect with the historic net payoff experiences. Figure 2 provides a longer-time perspective by drawing a once-a week look from the Figure 1 source forecasts, back over two years. Figure 2 (used with permission) What does this ETF hold, causing such price expectations? Figure 3 is a table of securities held by the subject ETF, indicating its concentration in the top ten largest holdings, and their percentage of the ETF’s total value. Figure 3 source: Yahoo Finance IYH has over half its investments in ten major, mainstream corporations serving the broad healthcare industry, from pharmaceuticals producers to healthcare insurers, medical equipment makers, and service providers. Investments in developmental research in biotechnology are restricted to the in-house activities of the big-pharma companies held. There the emphasis is more likely to be on capitalizing on known technology and existing markets rather than on breakthrough developmental activities. The expectations for these companies, derived from Market-Maker hedging to protect its own capital while facilitating volume transactions for big-$ fund clients, is shown below. Figure 4 is a table of data lines similar to that contained in Figure 1, for each of the top ten holdings of IYH. Figure 4 (click to enlarge) In an industry as unpredictably dynamic as this, wide variations in market experience can be the rule. The averages of IYH’s 10 largest holdings compete quite favorably with the 20 best equity wealth-building candidates from our population of 2475 issues. Column (5) contains the upside price change forecasts between current market prices and the upper limit of prices regarded by MMs as being worth paying for price change protection. The average of +9.0% of the top ten IYH holdings is close to the +10.2% of the population’s best. Its investments in Gilead Sciences, Inc. ( GILD) and AbbVie Inc. ( ABBV) exploit the hep-c extensive market, which has produced impressive stock price gains (11). BMY at its present price and coming price expectations offers further support for IYH gains. The other side of the coin is column (6), which shows what actual worst-case price drawdowns have been typical in the 3 months following each time there has been a forecast like those of the present day. Those risk exposures have been only -4.0% in the holdings top ten, less than half the -8.6% by equities at large. The IYH 10’s reward-to-risk ratio (14) of 2.3 outranks all of the other aggregate set measures. Conclusion IYH provides only modestly attractive forecast price gains, supported by equally appealing largest holdings. Both the ETF and many of its major holdings offer very attractive prospects in near-term price behaviors, demonstrated by previous experiences following prior similar forecasts by market makers. The principal attraction of IYF at this point in time is its strength of resistance to price drawdowns and excellent recovery from temporary bad times by the strong underlying trend of its economic sector. In any period of concern over market weakness this is a prime defensive commitment here. 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.