Tag Archives: nasdaq

Market Lab Report – Premarket Pulse 3/30/16

Major averages put in a strong showing yesterday on higher volume with the NASDAQ Composite nearly reaching its 200-day moving average. The NASDAQ 100 Index was able to clear its 200-day line as big-cap names were strong, but it was the Russell 2000 that stole the show, with a 2.67% gain. The rally was sparked by comments from Fed Chair Janet Yellen who said that financial conditions and the global economy are less favorable than they were in December which suggests the Fed will be putting off any rate hikes for the foreseeable future.  Electronic mortgage origination service provider Ellie Mae (ELLI) had a pocket pivot. It has shot higher on its last five earnings reports. Pretax margin 25.4%, institutional sponsorship has grown over the last 5 quarters, group rank 65. Facebook (FB) had a pocket pivot breakout. Earnings and sales are accelerating, pretax margin 55.6%, institutional sponsorship has grown in every quarter since the company went public, group rank 55.

The Teleology Of Smart Beta

By Craig Lazzara As assets tracking factor indices grow, so does the attention paid to evaluating and promoting these so-called “smart beta” funds. Even the nomenclature attracts attention. Professor William Sharpe, famous among other things for introducing the concept of beta to academic finance, has said that the term “smart beta” makes him ” definitionally sick ,” and lesser lights than he have also voiced reservations about the terminology. Recently, one of the financial community’s best journalists opined that smart beta may be less smart than many of its practitioners allow. How should an investor evaluate a “smart beta” strategy? One fair way is to evaluate it against the claims its advocates make, which requires that those claims be made explicit. A factor index provides exposure to stocks with certain common characteristics. Are those characteristics desirable in themselves, or desirable only because they are a means to a different end? What, in other words, is the telos of a smart beta index? This question puts a certain burden on both manager and investor, as clarity, already a moral virtue, becomes a practical necessity . For example, suppose an investor is sold a value-driven “smart beta” ETF. Its managers say (truthfully) that it will hold only stocks with above-average yields and below-average P/E ratios. The investor buys the fund, and several years later, finds that his “smart” ETF has underperformed the dumb old cap-weighted index from which its constituents were drawn. But the ETF’s stocks were cheap when they were bought and they remain cheap. Ought the investor to be aggrieved? And if so, with whom – with himself, or with his ETF manager? Of course, in our simple example, the investor may not have been fully clear, not even with himself, about his underlying assumptions. He may have told himself that he bought the ETF in question because he wanted to own undervalued stocks, and this may even be true, as far as it goes. But it may not go far enough. Perhaps the fuller truth is that he wanted to own undervalued stocks as a means of outperforming a cap-weighted benchmark. And smart beta’s failure to outperform, in this case, is as irksome as would be the underperformance of an active manager (although perhaps less painful in view of smart beta’s presumably lower fees). The investor, in other words, needs to understand his own motivation. Does he want factor exposure in itself, or because it is a means to a different end? An investor who undertakes factor exposure as a means of outperforming should be aware that, just as no active manager outperforms all the time, neither does any factor index. The investor should strive to understand the conditions that will make for a factor’s success. Equally, he should strive to understand his own goals and motivations . Disclosure: © S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC 2015. Indexology® is a trademark of S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC (SPDJI). S&P® is a trademark of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC and Dow Jones® is a trademark of Dow Jones Trademark Holdings LLC, and those marks have been licensed to S&P DJI. This material is reproduced with the prior written consent of S&P DJI. For more information on S&P DJI and to see our full disclaimer, visit www.spdji.com/terms-of-use .

Tax Efficiency: A Decisive Advantage For Some Index Stock Funds

Key highlights “Tax cost”-the difference between the before-tax return of a fund and its preliquidation after-tax return-is a way to gauge a fund’s tax efficiency. Vanguard analysis found that, for the 15 years ended November 30, 2015, the median tax cost of domestic actively managed stock funds was 27 basis points higher than that of domestic index stock funds. Some index stock funds can be tax-inefficient as well, especially those that seek to track more narrowly focused benchmarks, such as those in the mid- and small-capitalization markets. Broad-market index stock funds and ETFs may be more tax-efficient than actively managed stock funds and ETFs. Just as some ways of managing investments are more tax-efficient than others, certain types of investments are, by their nature, more tax-efficient as well. What makes one mutual fund more tax-efficient than another? Some relevant factors include a portfolio’s management strategy, the turnover or trading strategy, the accounting methodology used, and the activity of the fund’s investors. “One way that a fund’s tax efficiency can be measured is with its ‘tax cost,’ ” said Scott Donaldson of Vanguard Investment Strategy Group. “Tax cost refers to the before-tax return of a fund minus its preliquidation after-tax return. It represents a very high hurdle for active fund managers to overcome, in addition to their ongoing fund management expenses.” The illustration below shows a decisive tax advantage for index stock funds: The median tax cost for index stock funds (left side, green) was 71 basis points, whereas the median tax cost for actively managed stock funds (right side, green) was 98 basis points. Thus, for the funds in the data set, the median tax cost of domestic actively managed stock funds was 27 basis points higher than that of domestic index stock funds. The gap can be even larger: Note the 295 basis-point difference between the worst tax costs (shown in blue) of domestic actively managed and index stock funds. Moreover, the chart shows a much narrower range in tax cost in the index category. Why index stock funds may have the upper hand Because active managers make decisions based on a security’s potential to outperform, they can be more inclined to make specific, concentrated purchases in fewer stocks and to liquidate entire holdings more often than managers of broad-market index stock funds would. In making wholesale liquidations, active managers can be much more likely to realize capital gains, since an entire position’s gain could be realized at once. The tax efficiency of actively managed stock funds could, therefore, be much less stable, and the lack of depth and breadth of share lots in actively managed stock funds could negatively affect their future tax efficiency. Actively managed stock funds also have the potential for manager changes, resulting in new managers completely restructuring the portfolio, which could cause realization of gains from past investment success. Granted, some index stock funds can be tax-inefficient as well (see chart above). For example, stock funds that seek to track more narrowly focused benchmarks, such as those in the mid- and small-capitalization markets, fall into the bottom quartile in Vanguard’s tax-cost analysis. “Much more broadly based index stock funds will typically be more tax-efficient because they change their holdings less often,” Donaldson said. “Moreover, not all ETFs or conventional index stock funds are the same. Even stock funds that seek to track the same index can have different performance. The bottom line is, while Vanguard believes it’s much more important to manage the overall allocation of assets in your portfolio than it is to manage exclusively for taxes, your portfolio’s tax efficiency is important to take into account.” Aside from choosing stock funds that are more tax-efficient, investors can also engage in other best practices to minimize their taxes: Use tax-advantaged accounts. Maximize the use of tax-advantaged accounts, such as 401(k) plans and IRAs (both traditional and Roth) and 529 college savings plans. Be a tax-efficient investor. Use tax-advantaged accounts to rebalance an asset allocation or to sell appreciated positions that may provide better after-tax returns than completing similar transactions in a taxable account. Pay attention to asset location. Purchase tax-efficient investments in taxable accounts and tax-inefficient investments in tax-advantaged accounts, which can help you keep additional returns. Those incremental differences can have a powerful compounding effect over the long run. Notes: All investing is subject to risk, including the possible loss of the money you invest. Past performance is no guarantee of future returns. The performance of an index is not an exact representation of any particular investment, as you cannot invest directly in an index. We recommend you consult an independent tax advisor for specific advice about your individual situation. Prices of mid- and small-cap stocks often fluctuate more than those of large-company stocks. There is no guarantee that any particular asset allocation or mix of funds will meet your investment objectives or provide you with a given level of income. Vanguard ETF Shares are not redeemable with the issuing Fund other than in very large aggregations worth millions of dollars. Instead, investors must buy and sell Vanguard ETF Shares in the secondary market and hold those shares in a brokerage account. In doing so, the investor may incur brokerage commissions and may pay more than net asset value when buying and receive less than net asset value when selling.