Tag Archives: management

Best And Worst Q4’15: Large Cap Value ETFs, Mutual Funds And Key Holdings

Summary The Large Cap Value style ranks first in Q4’15. Based on an aggregation of ratings of 44 ETFs and 855 mutual funds. DIA is our top-rated Large Cap Value style ETF and FVSAX is our top-rated Large Cap Value style mutual fund. The Large Cap Value style ranks first out of the twelve fund styles as detailed in our Q4’15 Style Ratings for ETFs and Mutual Funds report. Last quarter , the Large Cap Value style ranked first as well. It gets our Attractive rating, which is based on an aggregation of ratings of 44 ETFs and 855 mutual funds in the Large Cap Value style. See a recap of our Q3’15 Style Ratings here. Figures 1 and 2 show the five best and worst-rated ETFs and mutual funds in the style. Not all Large Cap Value style ETFs and mutual funds are created the same. The number of holdings varies widely (from 17 to 1000). This variation creates drastically different investment implications and, therefore, ratings. Investors seeking exposure to the Large Cap Value style should buy one of the Attractive-or-better rated ETFs or mutual funds from Figures 1 and 2. Figure 1: ETFs with the Best & Worst Ratings – Top 5 (click to enlarge) * Best ETFs exclude ETFs with TNAs less than $100 million for inadequate liquidity. Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings The First Trust NASDAQ Rising Div Achiev ETF (NASDAQ: RDVY ), the iShares Enhanced US Large-Cap ETF (NYSEARCA: IELG ) and the State Street SPDR Russell 1000 Low Volatility ETF (NYSEARCA: LGLV ) are excluded from Figure 1 because its total net assets are below $100 million and do not meet our liquidity minimums. Figure 2: Mutual Funds with the Best & Worst Ratings – Top 5 (click to enlarge) * Best mutual funds exclude funds with TNAs less than $100 million for inadequate liquidity. Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings The State Street SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF (NYSEARCA: DIA ) is the top-rated Large Cap Value ETF and the Fidelity Rutland Square Trust II: Strategic Advisers Value Fund (MUTF: FVSAX ) is the top-rated Large Cap Value mutual fund. Both earn a Very Attractive rating. The Guggenheim S&P 500 Pure Value ETF (NYSEARCA: RPV ) is the worst-rated Large Cap Value ETF and the Dunham Alternative Income Fund (MUTF: DAALX ) is the worst-rated Large Cap Value mutual fund. RPV earns our Neutral rating while DAALX earns our Very Dangerous rating. PACCAR Inc. (NASDAQ: PCAR ) is one our favorite stocks held by Large Cap Value ETFs and mutual funds and earns our Very Attractive rating. Since 2011, PACCAR has grown after-tax profits ( NOPAT ) by 10% compounded annually. During the same time frame, PACCAR improved its return on invested capital ( ROIC ) from 17% to a top quintile 21%. Despite the strong fundamentals, the stock is down 22% year-to-date, which has left shares undervalued. At its current price of $50/share, the company has a price to economic book value ( PEBV ) ratio of 1.0. This ratio implies that the market expects PACCAR’s NOPAT to never meaningfully grow from current levels. If PACCAR can grow NOPAT by 8% compounded annually for the next 10 years , the stock is worth $64/share today – a 28% upside. Unum Group (NYSE: UNM ) is one of our least favorite stocks held by RPV and earns our Dangerous rating. Since 2010, Unum’s NOPAT has declined by 17% compounded annually on the heels of NOPAT margin falling from 9% to 4% over the same time frame. The company currently earns a bottom quintile ROIC of 3%, which is well below the 8% earned in 2010. While UNM is down nearly 5% this year, shares remain priced for exceptional profit growth. To justify its current price of $36/share, Unum must grow NOPAT by 10% compounded annually for the next 17 years. This expectation seems overly optimistic given Unum’s inability to grow profits over the past five years. Figures 3 and 4 show the rating landscape of all Large Cap Value ETFs and mutual funds. Figure 3: Separating the Best ETFs From the Worst ETFs (click to enlarge) Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Figure 4: Separating the Best Mutual Funds From the Worst Funds (click to enlarge) Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings D isclosure: David Trainer and Thaxston McKee receive no compensation to write about any specific stock, style, or theme.

Maximising Shareholder Value Has Nothing To Do With Maximising The Share Price

The idea that directors should seek to maximise shareholder value has come in for a lot of flak in recent years. James Montier of GMO even wrote a piece on it called ‘ The World’s Dumbest Idea ‘. One of the most prominent criticisms of maximising shareholder value is that it causes directors to focus too much on their company’s share price, which leads them to underinvest in the company’s long-term future in order to boost short-term profits (and therefore, the share price). This is not so much a failing of the concept of shareholder value maximisation as it is a failure to understand what shareholder value is and what directors can do in their attempts to maximise it. True shareholder value is a measure of long-term value The value of a company is essentially the value of all the cash it will return to shareholders over its remaining lifetime. Let’s assume that Sainsbury ( OTCQX:JSAIY ) ( OTCQX:JSNSF ) will survive another 100 years before closing its doors for the last time. In that case, the value of the company today is the value of all dividends paid out over the next 100 years plus any cash returned to shareholders, when the company is wound up (which we can ignore because it is usually zero). A dividend today is preferable to a dividend in 50 years’ time, so future dividends are usually “discounted” by an annual discount rate. If you want a 10% annual return on your Sainsbury investment, then you would discount the value of future dividends by 10% each year, in which case a 100p dividend 10 years from now would have a “present value” of about 42p. Add up those discounted future dividends and hey presto, you have the present “shareholder value” of Sainsbury, at least according to an investor who wants a 10% rate of return. A different discount rate would provide a different shareholder value. Because the company’s shareholder value is the discounted sum of 100 years of dividends, only a fraction of Sainsbury’s value today comes from dividends paid in the next 10 years. Most of its shareholder value comes from dividends that are expected to be paid more than 10 years in the future, as is the case for most mature companies. This is the true meaning of shareholder value; a multi-decade stream of dividends, which directors should be attempting to maximise, without taking unnecessary risk. True shareholder value maximisation should be much more about working to improve and expand the business for the next 10 years and the 10 years after that, rather than hitting short-term profit expectations. Share prices have almost nothing to do with shareholder value Those who believe in the wisdom of crowds might say that yes, the true shareholder value of a company is indeed the discounted value of its future cash returns to shareholders, but we can never know those cash flows and therefore can never calculate an accurate figure for shareholder value. They might go on to say that our best estimate of shareholder value is the market value or share price of a company, and so it is entirely sensible for directors to pay attention to share price and to be paid according to its performance. Utter drivel, is what I would say to that. The share price or market value of a company is, at most, a combined “best guess” by investors as to what a company’s shareholder value really is. However, calling it a “best guess” is wildly optimistic as a large portion of equity trades are carried out by traders who don’t even know the names of the companies whose shares they are buying and selling (especially the computer-driven High Frequency Traders who own shares for thousandths of a second). Even if all market participants were long-term dividend-focused investors, they still wouldn’t have the faintest idea what dividend Sainsbury will be paying 10, 20 or 30 years from now, and therefore no idea what its shareholder value is (and the same would be true for pretty much all companies). Rather than an estimate of shareholder value, share prices are more closely connected to factors like current dividends, current earnings and any and all combinations of news, noise, expectations and emotions; none of which have anything to do with true shareholder value. So the idea that maximising shareholder value means maximising the share price is a joke, which means that compensating executives with one-way bets on the share price (otherwise known as stock options) is equally daft. If executive directors are to be compensated by share price movements at all, it should be by insisting that they invest a significant amount of their own money into the company and to keep it invested for as long as they are on the board. In addition, they should be encouraged to focus on maximising true shareholder value rather than the company’s market value. As Lawrence Cunningham describes in the introduction to his book, The Essays of Warren Buffett : “The CEO’s at Berkshire’s various operating companies enjoy a unique position in corporate America. They are given a simple set of commands: to run their businesses as if (1) they are its sole owner, (2) it is the only asset they hold, and (3) they can never sell or merge it for a hundred years. This enables Berkshire CEOs to manage with a long-term horizon ahead of them, something alien to the CEOs of public companies.”

Growth Beating The Pants Off Of Value In 2015

2015 has been the year of the “FANGs.” Investors have fixated on just a handful of glamorous tech stocks – Facebook (NASDAQ: FB ), Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN ), Netflix (NASDAQ: NFLX ) and Google ( GOOG , GOOGL ) (now Alphabet) – that have held the broader market afloat even while earnings this year for American stocks have been mostly disappointing and the “average” stock has actually been falling. For lack of anywhere else to go, the investing public is crowding into a very small handful of recognizable names and hoping for the best. Consider the relative performance of the growth and value segments of the S&P 500. (Standard & Poor’s breaks the S&P 500 into two roughly equal halves, based on valuation, momentum and other factors.) Year to date through November 12, the S&P 500 Growth index – which includes the FANG stocks – was up 3.9%. Its sister, the S&P 500 Value index, was actually down by 5.5%. This is a peculiar market in which cheap stocks are getting cheaper and a handful of extremely expensive names keep getting more expensive. As a case in point, look at the advance-decline line, a simple measure of market breadth. Starting in April, the advance-decline line started to trend downwards and, apart from a brief rally in October, really hasn’t stopped sagging since. This means that fewer and fewer individual stocks are still rising, even while the market grinds slowly higher. In a “healthy” bull market, the advance-decline like rises along with the major stock indexes. So when you see an “unhealthy” market like this, one of two things has to happen. Either investors start to spread their bets across a wider swath of the market and market breadth improves… or they finally throw in the towel and sell the few remaining leaders. So, how on earth are we supposed to invest in a market like this? You really have two options. The first is simply to ride the momentum of some of these glamor names while it lasts. Sure, the FANGs are expensive. But that doesn’t mean they can’t get a lot more expensive in the short term. So, riding the momentum is a perfectly viable strategy so long as you’re ready and willing to sell at the first sign of weakness. The second option – and the one I am following in my Dividend Growth model – is to look for deep values amidst the carnage, or stocks that are already so cheap, you don’t mind if they get cheaper. While the S&P 500 Value index is down only 5.5% this year, there are plenty of stocks that are down 30% or more. Several midstream oil and gas pipeline stocks are currently sitting at multi-year lows and are sporting cash distribution yields I never expected to see again. And of course, there is always the third option: Keep a larger percentage than usual of your nest egg out of the stock market altogether, and simply wait for better prices across the board. My recommendation? Try some combination of the three. Keep your long-term portfolio heavy in cash and deep-value opportunities, but set a portion of your portfolio aside for more aggressive short-term trading. This article first appeared on Sizemore Insights as Growth Beating the Pants off of Value in 2015 . Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered specific investment advice or as a solicitation to buy or sell any securities. Sizemore Capital personnel and clients will often have an interest in the securities mentioned. There is risk in any investment in traded securities, and all Sizemore Capital investment strategies have the possibility of loss. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Original Post