2 New ETFs Dodge The Energy Sector
Summary There are both economic and environmental reasons for avoiding investments in the energy sector. ProShares has introduces an ETF – SPXE – that excludes the energy sector altogether; the fund is based on the S&P 500. State Street offers an SPDR – SPYX – that seeks to exclude all companies owning fossil fuel reserves. There are a couple of good reasons for avoiding the energy sector : for one, energy-based companies are just not doing that well – particularly in the oil and gas industry; second, there is a lot of pressure from environmental groups aimed at curtailing the activities of energy-related businesses – again, particularly the oil and gas industry. Little wonder, then, that the past three months have seen the introduction of three new ETFs designed to minimize exposure to the energy sector, doing so in different ways. I will look at two of these funds here: ProShares S&P 500 Ex-Energy ETF (NYSEARCA: SPXE ) SPDR S&P 500 Fossil Fuel Free ETF ( SPYX ) The third fund (mentioned below) will be discussed separately, in my next article. The Funds This is one of the few ProShares funds that is not leveraged or inverse, and one of four offerings that exclude specific sectors. 1 For all intents and purposes, the fund has little to do with environmental concerns; its function, as ProShares explains, is to enable investors to “tailor” their market exposure. 2 There is a surfeit of questions concerning the energy market, both short-term and long, and these questions can make investing in energy-related companies unappealing. Investors leery of the energy sector can use a fund like SPXE to avoid those uncertainties while still taking advantage of the usually reliable S&P 500 performance. There are also those investors who already have significant energy investments, but who are reluctant to extract themselves from holdings that frequently draw substantial dividends. SPXE offers these investors the opportunity to counterbalance energy-heavy portfolios, drawing on the rest of the S&P 500 to provide growth that may be lacking in the energy sector. The fund uses the S&P 500 Ex-Energy Index (SPXXEGP) which is rebalanced as needed. Distributions will be made quarterly. My estimated dividend yield is lower than the 2.16% projected by ProShares. Where SPXE avoids the energy sector as an investment strategy, SPYX tries to take the higher moral ground of eschewing those energy-related companies “that do not own fossil fuel reserves.” 3 This narrowing of the set of excluded companies gives SPYX a net of 11 holdings more than those available to SPXE . The shift in emphasis is based on a pair of considerations. The first is the increased emphasis on the environmental hazards posed by companies producing fossil fuels. The second involves the growing prospect of ” stranded assets ” – coal, oil and gas reserves that cannot be extracted because of restrictive conditions placed on companies. With the focus being placed on the ownership of fossil fuel reserves, SPYX is able to pick up on energy companies that operate without owning those reserves – and it is here that I find the concept behind SPYX to be flawed. From the environmental perspective, it is not the ownership of reserves that poses the problem – it is the production of those reserves into usable fuel wherein begins the environmental concern. Off-shore drilling companies, companies involved in various stages of extraction and transportation, and refining companies find their ways into the SPYX portfolio, even though they pose as much – if not more – of a threat to the environment as the owners of the reserves. From the practical perspective of having stranded assets , those involved in the extraction, transportation and refining of those assets are affected (in principle) as much as those who own the inaccessible reserves. This fund employs the S&P 500 Fossil Fuel Free Index (SP5F3UP). Dividends will be paid quarterly; the yield I have estimated is lower than the 2.07% yield projected on the basis of the index. Ex-Energy Performance I set out to determine if these funds provide any performance enhancement over the S&P 500 , and the extent to which any change in performance could be attributed to the excluded companies. My first test was of SPXE , using its index ( SPXXEGP ), beginning before the drop in oil prices in 2014 (December 2, 2013, specifically). Besides SPXXEGP and the S&P 500 , I included the following in the comparison: 4 Crude oil prices over the period of the test, for a basic industry measure; 5 S&P 500 Energy Select Sector Index (SPN) 6 Vanguard Energy ETF (NYSEARCA: VDE ) 7 (click to enlarge) Given the magnitude of the drop in crude prices over the two-year period, the drop in both SPN and VDE were somewhat moderated. As one might have expected, the exclusion of the energy sector from SPXXEGP resulted in an improved performance to the tune of 483bps – a reasonable payoff, though not quite of the magnitude of the losses the energy sector suffered. Fossil Fuel Free Performance As with the above, I wanted to compare SPYX ‘s performance (via its index, SP5F3UP ) with the S&P 500 . I also wanted to compare the indices with representatives of companies involved with fossil fuels; to this end I included (besides crude oil, as above): 8 S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production Select Industry Index ( SPXSOP ) iShares U.S. Oil & Gas Exploration and Production (NYSEARCA: IEO ) (click to enlarge) Unlike the ex-energy comparison, here we have an index that seems closely connected to the drop in oil prices, as SPXSOP moved lower by -54.07%. Losses by IEO , however, were still moderate by comparison. As for SPYX ‘s index, it has risen by 358bps more than the S&P 500 in general – however, this is 125bps less than SPXE ‘s index. Certainly, this is far less than one might have expected, if there was much substance behind the tighter focus on fossil free fuels. Assessment All things considered, I think SPXE is the better of the two funds, even though it does not make any environmental pretensions. In fact, insofar as it excludes all of the companies in the energy sector, rather than just those that own fossil fuel reserves, it is – in a sense – environmentally superior to SPYX . Moreover, it seems that by narrowing it’s focus in the energy sector SPYX actually gives up some of its performance. The fact that SPXSOP has dropped nearly as much as the price of crude is an indication that the oil and gas production industry as a whole is feeling the pinch caused by dropping crude prices – not just companies that own reserves. By holding onto production companies that do not own reserves, SPYX also seems to come up short in addressing environmental concerns. Non-reserve-owning oil-production firms in general are involved in environmentally risky endeavors such as fracking and deep-sea drilling; oil pipelines have carried with them a series of controversies, the most recent being the rejection of the Keystone XL project, which was rejected in large part because of the threat it posed to the environment. 9 Even the claim that SPYX avoids the impending issue of stranded assets is rather weak. Losses that might be foreseen by companies that own reserves that could be “stranded” would likely also extend to non-ownership production and transportation companies, which would see a potential decrease in business. 10 Admittedly, SPYX ‘s approach does achieve some gains in performance over its S&P 500 base, but those gains are not as great as the benefits offered by SPXE . On my estimation, SPYX does appear to be able to offer a larger dividend than its ProShares counterpart, but the potential gains SPXE has over and above those of the SPDR offering appear to outweigh the difference in dividends. Addendum I was originally going to discuss a third ETF here: the ETHO U.S. Climate Leadership ETF (NYSEARCA: ETHO ) ; although that fund excludes companies that pose risk to the environment, however, it is substantially different in approach from both SPYX and SPXE . ETHO ‘s approach to environmental concerns not only leads it to exclude the energy sector, but significant parts of many other sectors as well. 11 I will present a discussion of ETHO in my next article. Disclaimers This article is for informational use only. It is not intended as a recommendation or inducement to purchase or sell any financial instrument issued by or pertaining to any company or fund mentioned or described herein. All data contained herein is accurate to the best of my ability to ascertain, and is drawn from the Company’s Prospectus, Statement of Additional Information, and fact sheets. All tables, charts and graphs are produced by me using data acquired from pertinent documents; historical price data from Yahoo! Finance . Data from any other sources (if used) is cited as such. All opinions contained herein are mine unless otherwise indicated. The opinions of others that may be included are identified as such and do not necessarily reflect my own views. Before investing, readers are reminded that they are responsible for performing their own due diligence; they are also reminded that it is possible to lose part or all of their invested money. Please invest carefully. —————————— 1 Of 150 ETFs offered, 122 are either leveraged, inverse, or both; that leaves 28 “just plain old” ETFs. Besides energy, they offer funds that exclude financials, health care and technology. 2 ProShares S&P 500 Ex-Sector ETFs , available here . 3 SPDR S&P 500 Fossil Fuel Free ETF (SPYX) Prospectus , p. 2. Such reserves are defined as “economically and technically recoverable sources of crude oil, natural gas and thermal coal.” 4 For sake of convenience I have adjusted index values to a range commensurate with the ETFs involved. 5 Energy Information Administration (IEA) prices for Cushing OK Crude Oil Future Contract 1 (Dollars per Barrel). 6 Data for all S&P indices from S&P Dow Jones Indices . 7 VDE was chosen because it is based on the MSCI U.S. Investable Market Energy 25/50 Index , providing contrast to SPN . 8 To my knowledge there is no index or ETF that specifically covers only those companies that own coal, oil and gas reserves. I have opted, instead, to used “oil and gas exploration and production” for the comparison. 9 The Keystone XL project was supposed to run from Alberta, Canada into Montana, from whence it would run through South Dakota and into Nebraska, where it would link with the existing Keystone pipeline in Steele City. After six years of studies and wrangling, the project was rejected by the Obama administration. 10 I was able to address some questions about the philosophy behind SPYX to Christopher McKnett , Managing Director and head of Environmental, Social and Governance at State Street Global Advisors . He reaffirmed the environmental and economic concerns that are discussed above. He added that retaining some of the energy holdings “preserves some diversification benefits and may help dampen volatility as compared to a zero weight.” The correspondence took place between 12/21/2015 and 12/23/2015. 11 Particularly the utilities and materials sectors.