Tag Archives: investment

Time

Can you teach me ’bout tomorrow And all the pain and sorrow running free ‘Cause tomorrow’s just another day And I don’t believe in time Hootie & The Blowfish – Time Just a few days after writing our last letter about the warning sign that the high-yield market was flashing, Third Avenue went and closed an open-ended mutual fund to redemptions because it, essentially, couldn’t find reasonable bids for its bonds. In the aftermath, some commentators have noted that this fund was an exception, because its portfolio was particularly risky, made up of really low-quality bonds, and that it wasn’t symptomatic of larger issues in high-yield. I kinda agree and disagree. The issue was clearly that what they owned was a bunch of dreck, bottom-of-the-barrel type stuff, in a structure that really shouldn’t own such things. They forgot one of the key risk factors in managing money – time. The issue of time is often recast as one of a liquidity mismatch – owning assets that are less liquid than the liquidity terms offered to the investors in the structure. Mutual funds offer daily liquidity, which is great for assets like stocks and government bonds that have deep and liquid markets. Low-quality junk bonds aren’t quite as good a fit – a much better fit would be closed-end funds, where there are no redemptions, or in a private equity type fund of the sort that Oaktree and others run. But owning them in a regular retail mutual fund? Not a good idea. Is this going to be a systemic problem? Probably not. It appears that a lot of the mutual funds that own high-yield bonds only have portions of their funds in them, or, even better, are closed-end. Interestingly, many closed-end funds run by decent managers are trading for extremely deep discounts to NAV currently, and probably are good buys here. Our fund has been buying a few of these in the past week. Closed-end funds don’t have to worry about this liquidity element of time. However, another asset that is often confused with closed-end funds definitely does – ETFs. Time the past has come and gone The future’s far away And now only lasts for one second, one second Hootie & The Blowfish – Time ETFs have been hailed as the savior of retail investors. Some claim ETFs eliminate the risks in investing alongside other investors, whose time horizons may not match your own. In the case of Third Avenue, this issue was made clear by the fact that those who sold early realized a much better return than those who sold later, because Third Avenue was able to sell its better-quality bonds to redeem them. But ETFs suffer from the same problem. They have investors who can not only redeem daily, they can redeem at any time throughout the day as well. Amazingly, The Wall Street Journal published an article on the front of its Business and Finance section yesterday that is 100% wrong. Very wrong. Incredibly, I can’t believe this got published wrong. In it, Jason Zweig, who writes their weekly Money Beat column, states that ETF managers don’t have to sell their holdings to meet redemptions. Instead, they give a prorata share of those holdings to ETF dealers called authorized participants (APs), who in return give the ETF back some of its shares. This part is correct. But what Zweig misses completely, and I really don’t know how he does, is that the APs then turn around and sell those securities. APs are not in the business of just holding onto whatever the ETF manager gives them. Zweig says, “The ETF doesn’t have to fan the flames of a fire sale by dumping its holdings into a falling market.” Well, actually, it does. APs are in the business of arbitraging, for very small amounts of money, the differences between the price at which the ETF trades and the underlying value of its assets. That is why ETFs have to publish their holdings daily. It is why ETFs that invest in less-liquid assets will trade with a higher bid-ask spread. It’s why – oh man, it’s why a lot of things. But one thing ETFs are not are closed-end funds with an unlimited time horizon. They are a fund with an even shorter redemption time period than regular mutual funds. And yet, The Wall Street Journal has it completely backwards. Amazing. Time why you punish me Like a wave bashing into the shore You wash away my dreams Hootie & The Blowfish – Time But there is a more subtle, and more pernicious, aspect of the time factor in investing. That is the mismatch between investor expectations and time horizons for returns on the underlying investments. Different investors have different time horizons of course, but I’ve found in the more than 20 years I’ve been investing that what people say their time horizon is and what it really is are very different things. For all of its smug insularity and inability to hire women or minorities , one thing venture capital has gotten right is matching the duration of its investors with the duration of its investments. Investors in venture capital funds are conditioned to expect the investments to both take a long time to payoff and often not work out. It is a lesson that most retail investors miss. Instead, retail investors say they are “long-term” investors, when in reality they are generally uninterested investors. Until, suddenly, they are very interested – at which point they usually panic. This panic creates a selloff that punishes those investors who thought they had a lot of time to let their investments grow and generate the returns they expected, at least on a marked-to-market basis. This sell-off then triggers fear of further losses in investors who thought they owned “safe” assets, or “liquid” assets, so they sell too, which leads to a downward spiral. This is the contagion effect we’ve discussed here previously. It’s being exacerbated by the destruction occurring in many retail investor portfolios, because they, despite all the clear warning signs, chased yield instead of total return in recent years. In a world of low interest rates, they looked at the yields being paid by MLPs, private REITs, BDCs, and other yield vehicles and decided that getting a high current income was so important that they invested in companies or funds they didn’t really understand. They were happy, so long as prices were going up and they were getting paid. But now that prices are going down, often dramatically, they are realizing that there is no such thing as return without risk, that their tolerance for volatility is lower than they thought, and that their time horizon for their investments is shorter than they thought. Not a good combination. Time why you walk away Like a friend with somewhere to go You left me crying Hootie & The Blowfish – Time In my experience, mutual fund boards are no different in their short-termism than retail investors, and in some ways are worse. They get regular reports showing how the funds under their purview have performed on monthly, quarterly, yearly and 3-5 year time horizons. Usually there is a 10-year comparison as well, but it is routinely ignored as not relevant, as most investors ignore it too. These fund boards will harshly question any manager that dares to deviate from their benchmark, even for good reasons, and even if it is just to hold more cash during times of market excess. A mutual fund manager may well believe that the bonds or stocks it holds are overvalued, but be unable to do anything about it since they are, for the most part, supposed to be fully invested at all times. This means that even if the manager fully believes that the most prudent course of action would be to sell and hold cash, he or she generally won’t, because making a market bet is a quick way to find yourself looking for another job. Therefore, when markets do sell off, mutual funds are generally not a good source of buying support – they have to sell something to buy something. Twenty or thirty years ago, fund managers had a lot more flexibility to use their judgement about markets and fund positioning, but today much of that flexibility is gone. Similarly, another source of market buying during times of panic used to be the investment banks and bond dealers, but Dodd-Frank has killed that off. Today, dealers are just middle-men – they are not allowed to position securities on their books. When I interviewed at Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS ) after business school, the interview took place on the equity trading floor, where I was surrounded by hundreds of traders and salesmen. Today, Goldman has less than 10 traders making markets in U.S. stocks. Think they are making a big two-way market anymore? I don’t think so either. Time without courage And time without fear Is just wasted, wasted Wasted time Hootie & The Blowfish – Time One of them main advantages of hedge funds is that their investors, for the most part, understand that in order to make money, you need to be willing to tolerate some volatility and wait out the market’s recurring cycles. (Full disclosure: I manage a hedge fund, and am biased toward the structure). Another advantage is that, because their managers are granted flexibility to go both long and short, and to hold cash, they can take advantage of these market dislocations to buy good assets at distressed prices. They can cover shorts, sell one asset to buy another, or use leverage to buy when others panic. Granted, some managers will get their markets wrong, and fail spectacularly, but that doesn’t mean that overall the industry is flawed. It’s simply part of being in the markets – not everyone can be right all the time, and those that fail to manage their leverage and risk exposures will be carried out of the arena accordingly. But the impression that hedge funds are all the same, that they all are rapid day-traders (some are, some aren’t) misses the point that they are one of the few sources of buying support left in the markets today. They are, as a group, the only ones that have both the time and ability to step into falling markets and buy when others are panicking. ______________________________________________________________________________ This week’s Trading Rules: If you’re going to panic, panic early. Retail investors often panic later, and for longer, than market professionals expect, creating larger crashes than fundamentals dictate. Match your investment time horizons to those of your investors. “Forever” is not a choice. The Fed hiked rates by 25 basis points for the first time in 7 years, and after initially popping higher, stocks have begun to fall again. Retail investors have seen most of the asset classes they flooded into in recent years decimated in the past 6 months. Large cap stocks have massively outperformed small caps over the past 6 months, with the Russell 2000 Index falling 12.7% versus a 4.9% decline in the S&P 500. This is inflicting pain on active fund managers and forcing performance chasing in the few winning stocks. Time ain’t no friend of these markets. SPY Trading Levels: Support: 200, 195, then 188/189. Resistance: 204.5/205, 209/210, 213 Positions: Long and short U.S. stocks and options, long CEFs, long SPY Puts.

A Way To Own The Next Tech Unicorns

By Tim Maverick What investor wouldn’t want to own a tech unicorn? That is, a technology company, still private, that has a billion dollar-plus valuation based on its fundraising. Initial investors cash in on unicorns in a big way when these companies are either bought out or go public in an IPO. But that’s the realm of Wall Street and venture capital types… right? Wrong! There’s an obscure type of investment, tucked away in a recess of Wall Street, that allows everyday investors to get in on tech unicorns. Closed-End Interval Fund These closed-end interval funds have been in existence since the Investment Company Act of 1940. There are 58 such funds currently active. In effect, a closed-end interval fund is a strange mutual fund. It offers the same transparency and regulatory benefits of a normal mutual fund, and it’s continuously offered and priced every day. But, as the name suggests, closed-end interval funds are highly illiquid. Such a fund can only be sold at specified intervals . In many cases, such a fund can be sold only quarterly, and the fund will only buy back a portion of your shares. Thus, any money invested into such a fund isn’t money you’ll need anytime soon. It has to be very long-term, serious investment money. SharesPost 100 Fund But where do the tech unicorns come in? Well, one closed-end interval fund focuses on private firms that the fund manager believes are just a few years away from going public. In other words, late-stage tech companies. The fund is the SharesPost 100 Fund (MUTF: PRIVX ), and the investment minimum is only $2,500. Just to be clear to readers, I do not own the fund, and I have no affiliation with the fund. SharesPost 100 is currently invested in 31 companies. You can look at the current portfolio here . The fund’s eventual goal is to ramp to holding 70 to 90 names as more people invest. Ultimately, it aims to include more names from the SharesPost 100 list . According to Bloomberg, the fund has $68 million under management. Fund manager Sven Weber told Reuters he’d like to have $200 million under management within two years. Since its inception last year, the fund is up about 25%. But it hasn’t been very active recently, since the market for such companies has cooled in the past few months. It’s important to note that the fund will offer to buy back 5% of the outstanding shares from shareholders each quarter. If more than 5% of the shareholders want to bail out, they’d receive a pro-rated amount of the quantity they wanted to actually sell. The fund can suspend redemption privileges, as well. SharesPost also charges a sales load of 5.75% on amounts under $50,000, though the load drops as you invest more money. There’s also an advisory fee of 1.9%. So there you have it – a way to invest in tech unicorns, albeit one with a few warts. Personally, I could handle the fees and the risk of owning these shares, but the illiquidity is a big hang-up. What do you think? Leave us your thoughts in the comments section. And if you do decide to invest in the fund, please read the prospectus for a full look at the risks involved. Original post

Exelon: Utility Selling At 10-Year Lows, Again

Exelon’s share price bottomed in 2013 at $26.91, rose to $36.83 in Aug 2014 and Dec 2014, only to drop to $26.60 this month. The long-term investment thesis remains the same. Exelon’s profitability is still dependent on competitive wholesale prices driven by natural gas pricing. Two years ago, almost to the day, I penned an article discussing Exelon (NYSE: EXC ) trading within a hair’s breath of its 10-yr low. Unfortunately, I can write a follow-up as this is the case again. It seems EXC is just as controversial today as it was back then, and uncertainty remains the major obstacle. New income investors looking for higher relative yields should review EXC and current shareholders should continue to hang in and even add to their position. In the previous article, the investment thesis was laid out: Management and investors are making a huge bet that demand will increase, wholesale pricing will increase, and base-load capacity will decrease. Demand will increase with strengthening economic activity in the Northeast and Midwest. Pricing will pick up with a turn in natural gas pricing. Base-load capacity will decrease as coal-fired plants are retired and as more intermittent-load wind replaces investments in additional base-load capacity. When these three events positively influence EXC’s bottom line, share prices will be substantially above their current 10-year lows. However, these events have not happened, and the timeframe continues to get pushed out. With the growth of natural gas as a generating fuel, electricity pricing continues to be influenced by the price of natural gas. As we know, natural gas is once again sub-$2.00, applying pressure on electricity pricing. Below are three graphs from sriverconsulting.com that tell the story. The first is the Forward Market price for electricity in ISO New England. The most recent forward price matches its 10-yr low of March 2012. The second shows the relationship of the 5-yr forward price of natural gas and electricity and the third shows the same relationship on a 1-yr basis. The last two charts demonstrate the correlation between natural gas pricing and electricity pricing, and the trend over the previous 12 months has been for tighter correlations. As of the week of Dec 9, the forward 12-month NYMEX price for natural gas was $2.34. (click to enlarge) Source: sriverconsulting.com (click to enlarge) Source: sriverconsulting.com (click to enlarge) Source: sriverconsulting.com Natural gas pricing will continue to be a key factor in PJM markets. According to ISO New England, in 2000, natural gas represented 15% of the fuel used to generate power in the Northeast, and this percentage grew to 44% in 2014. The growth has been at the expense of coal and oil, with these fuels declining from 18% to 5% and 22% to 1%, respectively. Nuclear remained almost constant at 31% and 34%. The following 17-yr chart shows the growth in MW capacity by fuel type in the Northeast, as offered by the ISO New England 2015 Regional Electricity Outlook. (click to enlarge) One advantage of merchant power generators in other parts of the US is many utilize 20-yr purchase power agreements with electric distribution utilities, usually including a “fuel cost plus” formulation. However in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic and eastern Midwest, pricing is controlled by the Regional Transmission Organizations RTO, of which PJM Interconnect is the largest. The silver-lined underbelly of the auction process is the premium PJM now allows for “reliability,” and EXC’s nuclear generation qualify for these premiums. During the Polar Vortex of early 2014, power generation along the East Coast was dangerously close to falling under demand as frozen coal stocks and frozen natural gas valves caused an uncomfortably large amount of generating capacity being off-line. In response, PJM instituted an added premium for power generation with higher commitments to remain online, backed by huge fines for those who take the premiums but can’t deliver during similarly stressful times. Nuclear power, of which Exelon is the largest provider, is a qualified fuel for this premium. Over the next two years, this premium will be implemented and will help EXC realize a bit higher price for its commodity product. Demand and capacity retirements have been progressing along as expected, with additional nuclear plants announcing their retirement. Even after the acquisition of Pepco Holdings (NYSE: POM ), which is now expected to be EPS-neutral over the short-term, power generation sold mostly using the PJM 3-Yr Rolling Auction process will still represent about 50% of EXC’s earnings. While this exposure to the merchant market has declined from 80% in 2008, the graphs above have a large impact on earnings for EXC. Concerning the proposed merger with Pepco, management seems to have satisfied DC regulators with the move of some executives and their offices to the Washington area, along with $78 million in payments to DC customers. Exelon agreed to relocate 100 jobs from outside D.C. into the city and create an additional 102 union jobs. The company also agreed to co-locate its headquarters in D.C. Exelon has six months after the merger is approved to relocate elements of its corporate headquarters from Chicago to D.C. It will shift the primary offices of CFO Jack Thayer and Chief Strategy Officer William Von Hoene Jr. to D.C., as well as the entire Exelon Utilities division, which is now based in Philadelphia, along with divisional CEO, Dennis O’Brien. The merger could be finalized before management’s commitment to walk away if not completed by April 2016. Over the longer term, management estimates the merger can increase earnings by $0.25 a share over the next 4 years, or about 9% of the estimated $2.57 2016 EPS. Management believes the acquisition of Pepco will accomplish two important goals: the ability to fund the dividend entirely through its regulated businesses and the ability to gain sufficient critical mass to separate the regulated and unregulated businesses, if advantageous to shareholders. On a valuation basis, EXC offers an inexpensive entry point. Below is a comparison of fundamentals for EXC vs. the utility average, as offered by Morningstar.com: Source: morningstar.com, Guiding Mast Investments Consensus earnings estimate for next year have been increasing since June 2015. Below is a chart of 12-month consensus EPS estimates for 2015 and 2016, as offered by 4-traders.com. Insidermonkey.com wrote a positive article on EXC earlier this month. In summary: It’s been a down year for most utility companies as big mutual funds rotate out of the sector due to normalizing yields. Although Exelon Corporation shares are down 23% year-to-date because of the Great Rotation, Exelon’s decline has made it an attractive dividend play. Shares now yield 4.57% and trade at a reasonable 10.6 times forward earnings. Seeing as the company’s payout ratio of 0.55, Exelon’s dividend is secure and has room to expand given the company’s predicted next five year average EPS growth rate of 5.03%. Hedge funds are certainly bullish as the number of elite funds long the stock jumped by 10 during the third quarter. According to morningstar.com, in 2014, EXC’s total return was +39.9% while year-to-date total return has been a negative -23.0%. This compares to +20.3% and -11.3% for Diversified Utilities and +28.7% and -6.9% for the S&P Utility ETF (NYSEARCA: XLU ), respectfully. While the past 2 years have not been as profitable for EXC shareholders as the average industry investment, the current yield of 4.9% should be sufficient for income investors to buy and hold for the “eventual turnaround” in the same investment thesis outlined above. These 10-yr lows in share prices only come around every 10 years… or every 2 years in the case of EXC. Author’s note: Please review Author’s disclosures on his profile page.