Tag Archives: load

Relative Value The Reason To Keep Buying Munis And Long Bond ETFs

Two-and-a-half years back, the U.S. Federal Reserve, placed that percentage at 2%. Yet the U.S. has failed to hit the bulls-eye. In spite of the media hype that surrounds the notion of imminent Fed rate hikes, history suggests that the Fed will need to remain exceedingly “patient.” As much as the Fed might like to get us all off the drug of ultra-low borrowing costs, there are other risks with raising rates too soon. Since the Reserve Bank of New Zealand first formerly targeted inflation rates roughly 25 years ago, other central banks around the globe have followed suit; that is, many banks have been setting medium-term rates that prices should rise on an annualized basis, and then presenting those percentages publicly. Two-and-a-half years back, the U.S. Federal Reserve, placed that percentage at 2%. Yet the U.S. has failed to hit the bulls-eye. Trillions in electronically created dollars over 30 some-odd months, coupled with zero percent overnight lending rates during the Fed’s inflation targeting period, and the U.S. is still a long way from the stated goal. In spite of the media hype that surrounds the notion of imminent Fed rate hikes, history suggests that the Fed will need to remain exceedingly “patient.” In the quarter century of inflation targeting (at least as far as I have been able to determine), the Fed has never kicked off a rate tightening period when inflation sat below 2%. In truth, the Fed is not oblivious to the fact that dogged determination to move towards the normalization of overnight lending rates is more likely to hinder economic progress than ensure price stability or advance employment objectives. Who but a few members of Congress will grumble at Janet Yellen’s Fed deciding to push back into Q3 or Q4? After all, haven’t we already lived with zero percent rate policy (ZIRP) for six-plus years? As much as the Fed might like to get us all off the drug of ultra-low borrowing costs, there are other risks with raising rates too soon. With both Japan and Europe injecting trillions of QE dollars in an effort to boost inflation and improve economic prospects abroad, the money inevitably finds its way into market-based securities of relative value. The German 10-year? 0.35%. Spain? 1.3%. What overseas institution or money manager would not look at those 10-year yields and consider the safety of U.S. 10-year treasury bonds at 1.8% instead? Or our ultimate safe haven prospect, the 30-year at 2.37%. Granted, those are obscenely low yields that barely compensate for historical cost of living. On the other side of the ledger, though, the U.S. bond market has plenty of room to run on price before comparable yields match those of overseas sovereign debt securities. Yet these facts epitomize the Fed’s dilemma. The 30-Year (TYX):10-Year (TNX) spread has moved from 0.90 one year earlier to 0.57 today; the spread between the 10-Year and the 2-Year has shifted from 2.43 to 1.28. The yield curve continues to compress, and may get close to partial inversion if the Fed fails to exercise patience. Inverted yield curve? Partial inversion? What’s the big deal? Well, you’re talking about a circumstance where the odds of a domestic recession increase dramatically. Inverted yield curves have a near-perfect record of forecasting recessions in the U.S. For that matter, raising local rates before determining whether Europe, Japan and the rest of the world are capable of escaping respective recessions and stagnation is akin to suggesting the U.S. is self-sustaining island. Decoupling theories notwithstanding, the well-being of the United States is still very much dependent on what happens on the world stage -from China to Russia to Germany to Saudi Arabia. The investing implications may be as simple as supply and demand. Wouldn’t intermediate and long-term rates naturally go higher if demand for government bonds were waning? Similarly, with prominent proxies like the German 2-year heading further and further into negative returns, why on earth would foreign institutions and/or wealthy foreigners stop buying U.S. debt? The Vanguard Long-Term Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: BLV ) is still a winner when it comes to the probability of price gains. Meanwhile, if you’re looking to ensure higher monthly distributions, munis still offer relative value. The SPDR Nuveen Barclays Municipal Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: TFI ) works, and for those who welcome a little leverage and are not afraid of some volatility in the space, consider closed-end muni bond funds like the Nuveen Municipal Opportunity Fund (NYSE: NIO ) or the Eaton Vance National Municipal Opportunities Trust (NYSE: EOT ). As much as U.S. investors would like to believe in the miraculous, never-say-die, resilience of the U.S. economy, the facts about our “low” unemployment rate and our “accelerating” gross domestic product (GDP) are entirely misleading. Only 46% of 16-54 year olds are working; it was closer to 52% at the eve of the Great Recession in December 2007. Tens of millions of retirees in the early 50s? Not bloody likely. And what about the acceleration of GDP in the last few quarters? It is primarily due to an undesirable increase in household debt. Here is a brief history lesson. Americans held $6.3 trillion in household debt in June of 2002. Due to the housing bubble in which anyone could borrow any amount to get rich quick, that number swelled to $12.6 trillion by June of 2008. The Great Recession required that consumers had to deleverage, refinance or default, but total household debt only dropped to $11.3 trillion by December 2012. Perhaps ironically, the reamarkble stock gains that occurred in 2013 and 2014 are partially attributable to household debt climbing back up once more, up to $11.7 trillion at the latest figures of September 2014. Some argue that this proves that U.S. consumers have been happily consuming. Well, yes… on borrowed dollars. After all, real wages have been declining and are actually lower than they were in December of 2007. Isn’t it true that the lower interest rates make the cost of servicing $11.7 trillion in September 2014 much more sustainable than the cost to service debt back in June 2008? Absolutely. Unfortunately, this notion of debt servicing costs being the only important factor means interest rates need to stay permanently lower for U.S. consumers to borrow-n-spend. If rates go higher, the only way that picture does not get ugly is if Americans start earning a whole lot more from their employers. In other words, either rates have to stay exceptionally low for households and the U.S. government to service the monstrous debts, or households and the U.S. government need to earn a whole lot more than they’ve been earning. Which scenario do you see as most probable – employers paying workers higher real wages in the months and years ahead, or the Federal Reserve barely touching the overnight lending rate? In 15 years, the Bank of Japan (BOJ) has not been able to get their overnight lending rate above 0.5%. When you combine the reality of low rate addiction/necessity with limited supply/extraordinary demand for longer-term sovereign debt, you conclude that yields will keep falling. Investment possibilities should include: BLV, TFI, NIO, EOT, as well as the Market Vectors Long Municipal Index ETF (NYSEARCA: MLN ) and the SPDR Nuveen S&P High Yield Municipal Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: HYMB ). Disclosure: Gary Gordon, MS, CFP is the president of Pacific Park Financial, Inc., a Registered Investment Adviser with the SEC. Gary Gordon, Pacific Park Financial, Inc, and/or its clients may hold positions in the ETFs, mutual funds, and/or any investment asset mentioned above. The commentary does not constitute individualized investment advice. The opinions offered herein are not personalized recommendations to buy, sell or hold securities. At times, issuers of exchange-traded products compensate Pacific Park Financial, Inc. or its subsidiaries for advertising at the ETF Expert web site. ETF Expert content is created independently of any advertising relationships.

Equity CEFs: Global CEFs For A QE Europe

Summary After years of lagging the US markets, will Quantitative Easing by the European Central Bank inflate the European stock markets much like the Federal Reserve did for US markets? That seems to be the central question as the ECB begins its own QE bond buying program designed to help stimulate the Eurozone economies. And if the ECB is successful, then what global equity CEFs might benefit as well? If Quantitative Easing – Europe style helps European stocks much like Quantitative Easing – USA helped our equity markets, then it stands to reason that global equity based CEFs that have a high exposure to European stocks might benefit as well. Though I am not familiar with any equity CEFs that are pure European stock focused, i.e. follow an index that includes the largest and most popular European stocks like an S&P 500, you can certainly find equity CEFs that have a large percentage of their portfolios, typically around 25% to 35%, exposed to the large cap European stock markets. This is in contrast to the Asia/Pacific region in which there are quite a number of equity CEFs dedicated entirely to stocks in these markets, whether they be general equity CEFs, emerging market CEFs or more country specific CEFs. The theory, however, is that any QE – Europe would probably benefit the largest and most liquid European stock names and thus investors should focus on equity CEFs that include these securities as part of their overall portfolio. There are also several ETFs, such as the popular iShares Europe fund (NYSEARCA: IEV ) , that will give you a pure play on the largest and most popular European stocks as a non-managed index fund, but I personally like the global equity CEF approach since not only are many of these funds trading at wide discounts and are at the low end of their discount/premium range, but they also are diversified so that you don’t put all your eggs in one basket in case QE – Europe doesn’t have quite the same effect as QE – USA. Most of the global equity CEFs I follow are diversified among the US, Europe and Asia/Pacific markets and can also offer varying income strategies that help pay for their large yields, generally in the 7% to as high as 11%. For example, leveraged income global equity CEFs will often include fixed-income securities such as preferreds or corporate bonds to reduce volatility and provide further diversification to protect against any one sector underperforming. After all, we’re not looking for home runs in these funds but rather relative outperformance over their CEF and ETF counterparts. So if you want the pure play European stock approach, then IEV or some other European stock focused ETF is probably a better way to go. But as you’ll see, diversification has its merits and many of these global equity CEFs have outperformed, both at the NAV and market price levels – the most popular international ETFs such as IEV or the more broadly based iShares Morgan Stanley EAFE international index (NYSEARCA: EFA ) , which includes Europe, Asia and the Far East stock markets, hence the EAFE. Global Equity CEF 1-Year and 3-Year Performances The following two tables sorts the global equity CEFs I follow by their total return NAV performances over one-year and then three years (through January 23rd so a little longer than one-year and three-ye ar periods). All of these funds have roughly 25% – 35% large cap European stock exposure though most will still have a higher exposure to US markets and some may be more Asia/Pacific stock weighted than European stock weighted. What are not included in the tables are global equity CEFs that focus in emerging markets are country specific or sector specific funds such as global utilities or global REITs. In other words, I’m just including global equity CEFs that may be beneficiaries of any QE – Europe due to their large cap European stock exposure. Also included at the bottom of each table are the total return ETF performances of the most popular international ETFs, IEV and EFA , and from the US major market indices, the SPDR S&P 500 (NYSEARCA: SPY ) , the Powershares NASDAQ-100 (NASDAQ: QQQ ) , the SPDR Dow Jones 30 Industrials (NYSEARCA: DIA ) . 1-Year Total Return Performance 3-Year Total Return Performance Recommended Global Equity CEFs For QE – Europe Using the tables above and other proprietary information regarding relative valuations and historic NAV performance, these are the global equity based CEFs with European stock exposure that I would recommend. First is the Eaton Vance Tax-Advantaged Global Dividend Income fund (NYSE: ETG ) , $16.15 market price, $17.71 NAV, -8.8% discount, 7.7% current market yield . ETG , along with (NYSE: ETO ) , are Eaton Vance’s two global leveraged equity based CEFs that also include about 20% of their portfolios in fixed-income preferred securities. Both of these funds, along with (NYSE: EVT ) , which is Eaton Vance’s leveraged US based CEF, are higher risk, higher reward CEFs due to their use of leverage but all have been fantastic performers over the past few years both at the NAV and market price level. ETG used to have the highest valuation of all of the Eaton Vance leveraged CEFs but currently trades at a -8.8% discount, at the low end of its Premium/Discount range as shown in this 3-year Premium/Discount chart. (click to enlarge) ETG includes about 32% of its portfolio in large cap European stocks, 7% exposure in Asia/Pacific and the rest mostly in US based large-cap stocks. ETG’s overall portfolio is 82% equities and 18% preferred securities. I have followed ETG for years and I often used it as a short hedge against my long CEF positions as the fund would often spike up to trade close to a premium valuation for short periods only to drop back to a wider discount. For investors who think that CEFs don’t stray much from their premium/discount valuations over time, ETG is a good example of a fund that does. Eaton Vance’s other leveraged global equity CEF, ETO is similar to ETG but trades at a much narrower and even historically narrow -1.2% discount due to recent distribution increases and very large capital gain distributions over the last couple years. Frankly though, both of these funds have knocked the cover off the ball the last few years even with their global stock exposure and have far outperformed IEV or EFA at both the NAV and market price levels. Referring to the tables above, ETG has returned 62.4% to investors at its market price in a little over three years while ETO has returned a whopping 81.6% . Have The Alpine CEFs Finally Turned The Corner? Well, I never thought I would say this but the second group of global equity CEFs I would recommend to take advantage of a European market turnaround are the Alpine Total Dynamic Dividend fund (NYSE: AOD ) , $8.66 market price, $10.02 NAV, -13.6% discount, 7.8% current market yield and the Alpine Global Dynamic Dividend fund (NYSE: AGD ) , $9.99 market price, $11.25 NAV, -11.2% discount, 7.7% current market yield . For those of you who have followed my articles over the years, you know that I had been one of Alpine’s biggest bears ever since I started writing on Seeking Alpha due to the two fund’s ineffective dividend harvest income strategy that dramatically eroded the fund’s NAVs over the years while overpaying their distributions. Alpine finally got the message a couple years ago and brought in new portfolio managers who first took steps to minimize the use of their dividend harvest strategy while significantly reducing the distributions to a more reasonable NAV yield. Then just a year ago, Alpine implemented a reverse split (not their first) for the two funds to boost up their depressed NAV prices. Though this was tough medicine to take and the funds still reflect some of the worst NAV and market price performances of any equity CEFs since their inceptions in 2006 and 2007, it’s safe to say that the funds have finally turned it around and are seeing a resurgence in their NAV performances. Though AGD is considered the global of the two funds, the fact is both funds have similar portfolios and similar exposure to European equities, with AGD showing 32% of its portfolio in European stocks, 55% in US stocks and about 11% in Asia/Pacific while AOD’s portfolio breakdown is 29% in European stocks, 58% in US stocks and 11% in Asia/Pacific (as of 10/31/2014). Though the funds rely less on a dividend capture income strategy now and have much more achievable NAV yields of about 6.8% instead of the 12%+ NAV yields they use to have, there still seems to be hesitation by investors as to whether the funds have actually turned the corner. This is reflected in the fund’s wide discounts with AGD at a current -11.2% discount and AOD at one of the widest discounts of all equity CEFs at -13.6%. But this is where the opportunities lie because investors were wrong in their zeal for AGD and AOD several years ago (as I pointed out in many articles) when investors drove the fund’s valuations up to market price premiums as high as 50% in early 2010 and I believe they are wrong now as the fund’s drop to double digit discounts just at a time when their improved income and growth strategies could really start to pay off. A Global Equity CEF With The Highest European Exposure The last global equity CEF I am recommending is also one I used to pan because of its high valuation and lackluster NAV performance, but it also has one of the highest exposures to large cap European stocks if you believe the time is now for this region to outperform. The Voya International High Dividend Equity Income fund (NYSE: IID ) , $7.94 market price, $8.44 NAV, -5.9% discount, 10.4% current market yield targets 50% of its portfolio to be invested in European stocks, 40% in the Asia/Pacific region and only about 9% in US stocks. This minimal exposure to the US markets has resulted in IID’s severe NAV and market price underperformance over the last few years though the fund has continued to maintain a high NAV yield and offer an extremely generous market price yield, currently 10.4% paid monthly, even in the face of this underperformance. Some might argue that this is still too generous as the fund’s NAV yield of 9.8% will not be easy to achieve for an option-income CEF that targets a fairly low 20% – 50% of its portfolio to write options against. In other words, IID will need a lot more portfolio appreciation going forward if it wants to continue to pay out that high of an NAV yield. Because the alternative is continued NAV erosion and a diminishing asset base, which makes it that much more difficult to sustain the current distribution. I personally would feel even better about IID’s turnaround prospects if Voya cut the distribution to a more attainable 7% – 8% NAV yield because if the QE – Europe effect doesn’t play out, then Voya will probably have to take that step. IID , like ETG , is another fund that can vary widely in its valuation, going from a market price premium to a market price discount in a matter of weeks as seen in this three-y ear Premium/Discount graph. (click to enlarge) As you can see, IID’s current -5.9% discount is at the bottom of its range for a fund that typically can trade at a market price premium. Though IID is certainly not the most undervalued global equity CEF even at the bottom of its discount range, one reason why it trades at such a high relative valuation is because of its appreciation potential. Because if the international markets like Europe start to play catch up with the US markets, then IID is one of the best high risk/high reward equity CEFs to take advantage of that. Conclusion All of these fund’s portfolios can be seen at their fund sponsor’s websites and this analysis does not take into account a fund’s actual stock holdings though there tends to be a lot of overlap in the large-cap international stocks these funds own. In addition, most of these global equity CEFs use hedging strategies to reduce currency risk and the effectiveness of these strategies is also not taken into consideration. But if you believe that QE – Europe has the potential to do for large-cap European stocks what QE – USA did for our markets, then these global equity CEFs, offering low valuations and high yields, could be an excellent way to play off that effect.

Fire Your Investment Manager: Ideas For An Ultra-Low Volatility Index Part V

Our provisional Ultra-Low Volatility Index has reached an all time high. It handled recent market volatility splendidly. Recent market volatility has served as an excellent out-of-sample test. As before, here are the provisional Ultra-Low Volatility Index strategy’s rules. Buy the PowerShares S&P 500 Low Volatility ETF (NYSEARCA: SPLV ) with 80% of the dollar value of the portfolio. Buy the Direxion Daily 20+ Yr Trsy Bull 3X ETF (NYSEARCA: TMF ) with 20% of the dollar value of the portfolio. Rebalance annually to maintain the 80%/20% dollar value split between the positions. Here are the results in a linear scale: (click to enlarge) There is no denying that the performance of the strategy has destroyed the S&P 500 on a risk/return basis. The outperformance continues in the last 12 months: (click to enlarge) The last 6 months: (click to enlarge) The last 3 months: (click to enlarge) And YTD 2015: (click to enlarge) Personally, even though the performance is outstanding, I do not feel comfortable with strategies which do not use multiple markets for hedging, but for investors who only like stock/bond mixes, this strategy index is interesting food for thought. I do not feel comfortable with strategies which rely heavily upon bonds as the hedging mechanism for equity exposure , because these strategies, such as risk parity, have benefited from a multi-decade secular bond bull market. As Bruce Kovner once said, one of his main jobs is to imagine configurations of the world that do not yet exist, but could. I believe that a multi-year, secular bear market in bonds is a high probability potential future event path. Therefore, I believe that hedging using multiple markets is the responsible thing to explore, even though our ideas for an Ultra-Low Volatility index have performed well historically and in the very recent past. Now that you’ve read this, are you Bullish or Bearish on ? Bullish Bearish Sentiment on ( ) Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Why are you ? Submit & View Results Skip to results » Share this article with a colleague