Tag Archives: nreum

VNQI: International Equity REITs Yielding 3.85%

Summary VNQI is a far better method for international equity than buying ADRs. The Vanguard Global ex-U.S. Real Estate ETF has everything most investors would want. Intense diversification combined with strong yields. Investors need to consider the bid-ask spread when buying into an ETF, even if they are holding it for the long term. Investors need international exposure and in my opinion the best way to get that exposure is through diversified ETFs with very low expense ratios. One of the ETFs that I am personally using for my international exposure is the Vanguard Global ex-U.S. Real Estate ETF (NASDAQ: VNQI ) and I can tell you from personal experience I like the investment much better than equity investments where the ADRs (American Depositary Receipts) are charging me fees for holding the equity. Previously, those fees could only be deducted from dividends so I made the unwise move of making an equity investment through ADRs that had no dividend. If you want to know more about ADRs, read this article from Charles Schwab . The ADR is awful After the changes to allow agents to collect fees even if the underlying security did not pay a dividend, I found I had the single worst type of “investment”. This is the kind of “investment” that pulls money out of your pocket instead of putting money in. It’s like a negative dividend, and I’m less than thrilled about it. I’ve held onto that stock so I could time the sale for a tax loss and it looks like this year will be the year to do it. Due to how large the tax loss will be, I will be reaping it for years to come. I could sell smaller positions each year rather than carrying the loss across multiple years, but I’m not fond of holding any security with a negative dividend. Vanguard Global ex-U.S. Real Estate ETF is excellent Instead of providing negative cash flows, the Vanguard Global ex-U.S. Real Estate ETF is offering investors a distribution yield of 3.85%. I like the yield, I like the business model of equity REITs, and I like Vanguard as the manager of the fund for a couple reasons. Reason 1: Opaque When an ETF is going to be investing in securities that are even remotely illiquid, I would like to see some opaqueness. Vanguard does not regularly update the holdings of their ETFs and makes it more difficult for investors to know precisely what is inside the ETF. By making it more difficult for institutional investors to know what stocks will be bought and sold by the ETF, Vanguard is able to discourage front-running of their trades. If someone was able to effectively front-run the Vanguard trades, they would make some serious profits and the returns to holders of the Vanguard ETF would be marginally reduced. Even if the reduction is marginal, I don’t want any reduction in my returns. It is extremely rare that I will endorse a strategy that is more opaque, but Vanguard is one of the few companies that earned my respect over the years. It is difficult to earn my respect and very easy to lose it. I’m holding a significant portion of my portfolio in Vanguard ETFs and I trust them to be acting the best interests of the shareholders. Reason 2: Diversification Vanguard Global ex-U.S. Real Estate ETF offers investors excellent diversification through having a total of 632 holdings. Only 23.1% of the value of the ETF was invested in the top ten holdings. Only two countries represent more than 10% of the portfolio, those are Japan at 22.7% and Hong Kong at 10.8%. Reason 3: Correlation My other international investment is the Schwab International Equity ETF (NYSEARCA: SCHF ). In my opinion, SCHF is one of the best international investments available today. I’m adding to my position in SCHF to increase the international exposure of my portfolio. Vanguard Global ex-U.S. Real Estate ETF offers moderately high levels of correlation with the Schwab International Equity ETF. However, most diversified international investments show high correlation to each other. Compared to the level of correlation that I see on other international funds, the correlation for VNQI isn’t too bad. Reason 4: Bid-Ask spread When you’re buying into a position in an ETF, you’re usually stuck paying the spread. If you intend to hold the investment indefinitely, you may only need to cross the spread once. Even if you only cross the spread once, it can be a meaningful reduction in your portfolio value if the spread is significant. As I have been writing this article I checked live updates on the bid and ask for VNQI a couple times. I’ve seen the spread range from $.01 to $.03. Share prices were running around $57, so we are looking at a range of around .02% to .05% being lost to the spread. Over the long term, it is usually assumed that you would lose half the spread going in and half the spread going out. I don’t like selling long term investments with solid dividend yields, so when I buy an ETF I intend to hold it for a long time. If you don’t want the ETF in 2025, why buy it now? Reason 5: I love dividends This ETF is offering solid yields on the portfolio which is the antithesis of the negative yield on ADRs. If an investor is investing for the long term, they would be wise to look at the yield they are buying and focus on acquiring income that is both respectable in volume and highly diversified in nature. That makes VNQI a very reasonable addition to most portfolios. It offers a strong yield to go with heavily diversified holdings. Conclusion When investors need international exposure, VNQI is one of the solid options to do it. There are several factors for the ETF and only a few against it. In my opinion, the biggest drawbacks are the expense ratio and the exposure to China (around 8.28% in China). The expense ratio of .24% is much lower than competitors offering international REIT exposure, but it is also much higher than the expense ratios on any of my other ETFs. Different people build their wealth in different ways. My method was being very frugal with my money. One way that I demonstrate that frugal stance is in limiting my exposure to high expense ratios. I’m not as big on the exposure to China because I think the Chinese economy is in a bubble and I don’t want that bubble in my portfolio. To avoid that bubble, my new holdings for international exposure (outside of dividend reinvestment) will be made in the Schwab International Equity ETF. I’m more comfortable with SCHF’s allocation by country than I am with VNQI. Even though I’m focusing on acquiring more SCHF, I’m going to continue holding my shares in VNQI. I think VNQI is a solid choice for part of the international exposure in the portfolio of a tax advantaged investor. Disclosure: The author is long VNQ, SCHF. (More…) The author wrote this article themselves, and it expresses their own opinions. The author is not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). The author has no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. Additional disclosure: Information in this article represents the opinion of the analyst. All statements are represented as opinions, rather than facts, and should not be construed as advice to buy or sell a security. Ratings of “outperform” and “underperform” reflect the analyst’s estimation of a divergence between the market value for a security and the price that would be appropriate given the potential for risks and returns relative to other securities. The analyst does not know your particular objectives for returns or constraints upon investing. All investors are encouraged to do their own research before making any investment decision. Information is regularly obtained from Yahoo Finance, Google Finance, and SEC Database. If Yahoo, Google, or the SEC database contained faulty or old information it could be incorporated into my analysis.

Best And Worst: All Cap Value ETFs, Mutual Funds, And Key Holdings

Summary All Cap Value ranks sixth in 2Q15. Based on an aggregation of ratings of 256 mutual funds. FIKDX is our top rated All Cap Value mutual fund and COPLX is our worst rated All Cap Value mutual fund. The All Cap Value style ranks sixth out of the 12 fund styles as detailed in our 2Q15 Style Rankings report . It gets our Neutral rating, which is based on an aggregation of ratings of 256 mutual funds in the All Cap Value style. There are no All Cap Value ETFs under coverage. Figure 1 shows the five best rated and five worst rated All Cap Value mutual funds. Not all mutual funds are created the same. The number of holdings varies widely (from 22 to 1148). This variation creates drastically different investment implications and therefore, ratings. Investors seeking exposure to the All Cap Value style should buy one of the Attractive-or-better rated mutual funds from Figures 1 and 2. Figure 1: 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. LSV U.S. Managed Volatility Fund (LSVMX, LVAMX) is excluded from Figure 1 because its total net assets are below $100 million and do not meet our liquidity minimums. Advisors’ Inner Circle Frost Kempner Multi-Cap Deep Value Equity Fund (MUTF: FIKDX ) is our top rated All Cap Value mutual fund. One of our favorite stocks held by All Cap Value funds is Qualcomm (NASDAQ: QCOM ). Over the past decade, Qualcomm has grown after-tax operating profit ( NOPAT ) by 18% compounded annually. Every year since 2003, with the exception of 2008, Qualcomm has generated positive free cash flow , with a cumulative $27 billion in free cash flow over this timeframe. Economic earnings have also grown at a compounded annual rate of 20% and been positive in 15 of the past 17 years. Despite the excellent growth in the underlying business operations, the market has failed to properly value Qualcomm, creating a great investment opportunity. At its current price of ~$67/share, QCOM has a price to economic book value ( PEBV ) ratio of only 0.9. This ratio implies the market expects Qualcomm’s NOPAT to permanently decline by 10%. This seems unlikely given the strength of Qualcomm’s business. If Qualcomm can grow NOPAT by 10% compounded annually for the next six years , the stock is worth $108/share today – a 61% upside. Copley Fund, Inc. (MUTF: COPLX ) is our worst rated All Cap Value mutual fund One of the worst stocks currently in the All Cap Value style funds is Intersil Corporation (NASDAQ: ISIL ). We recently put ISIL in the Danger Zone , citing many of the problems below. Since 2006, Intersil’s NOPAT has declined by 24% compounded annually. Along with its declining NOPAT, the company’s margins have declined dramatically from a high of 19% in 2006 to their current level of 2%. Intersil’s ROIC has also declined to 0%, down from 8% in 2006. As a result, the company is extremely overvalued, with a PEBV ratio of 7.3. To justify its current valuation of $13/share, ISIL would need to grow NOPAT at 41% compounded annually for the next 13 years . This appears to very optimistic considering that ISIL has realized declining revenues since 2006. Figure 2 shows the rating landscape of all All Cap Value mutual funds. Figure 2: Separating the Best Mutual Funds From the Worst Funds (click to enlarge) Sources Figures 1-2: New Constructs, LLC and company filings D isclosure: David Trainer owns QCOM. David Trainer and Allen L. Jackson receive no compensation to write about any specific stock, style, style or theme. Disclosure: The author is long QCOM. (More…) The author wrote this article themselves, and it expresses their own opinions. The author is not receiving compensation for it. The author has no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Lipper Fund Flows: Equity Funds Post Gains Amidst Greece News

By Patrick Keon The broad market equity indices rallied on the last trading day of the fund-flows week ended Wednesday, June 10, 2015, to reduce their overall losses for the week. The Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500 Index gained 236.36 and 25.05 points, respectively, on that day. This spike enabled both the Dow (-75.87 points) and S&P 500 (-8.87 points) to close the week with losses of only 0.41% each. Speculation about an impending Federal Reserve interest rate hike and about Greece dominated the financial news for the week. Stronger economic data pointed to an interest rate hike by the Fed this fall. The Labor Department reported that the economy had generated 280,000 new jobs for May – far more than anticipated. U.S. data services hinted at a possible upward revision to Q1 GDP as data suggested consumer spending was higher than initially estimated. And, New York Federal Reserve President William Dudley commented that he still expects there to be a rate hike this year. Greece started the week off on a down note, informing the International Monetary Fund on Thursday, June 4, that it intended to combine the four loan payments due in June into one lump-sum payment on June 30 (with the first payment due on Friday, June 5, being skipped). The markets did not react favorably to this news; both the Dow and the S&P 500 shed 0.9% on June 4. But the key piece of news contributing to this past Wednesday’s rally was that Greece, Germany, and France had agreed to ramp up negotiations in order to avoid a default by Greece. Turning our attention to the week’s fund-flow activity, Lipper’s fund macro-groups (including both mutual funds and exchange-traded funds [ETFs]) had aggregate net outflows of $7.5 billion for the week. Money market funds (-$7.2 billion), taxable bond funds (-$2.6 billion), and municipal bond funds (-$412 million) all suffered net outflows, while equity funds grew their coffers by $2.8 billion net. The majority of the outflows from taxable bond funds came from ETFs (-$2.0 billion), while mutual funds had $653 million leave. Within the ETF universe the two biggest individual net outflows came from high-yield products iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF ((NYSEARCA: HYG ), -$1.1 billion) and SPDR Barclays High Yield Bond ETF ((NYSEARCA: JNK ), -$763 million). High yield was also the main culprit for mutual funds; the group saw $809 million leave. Municipal bond mutual funds had negative flows of $409 million net for the week. Continuing the trend we saw in taxable fixed income funds, high-yield muni debt funds were the single largest contributor (-$239 million) to the net outflows. ETFs (+$2.0 billion) accounted for the majority of net new money into equity funds, while mutual funds contributed $800 million to the inflows. The two largest net inflows among individual ETFs were into SPDR S&P 500 ETF ((NYSEARCA: SPY ), +$812 million) and Financial Select Sector SPDR ((NYSEARCA: XLF ), +$530 million). For mutual funds, nondomestic equity funds (+$1.6 billion) were responsible for all the positive net flows, while domestic equity funds (-$800 million) once again saw money leave their coffers. After taking in $8.0 billion of net new money the previous week, money market funds had net outflows of approximately the same amount (-$7.2 billion) this past week. Institutional money market funds were responsible for $5.5 billion of the week’s outflows.