Tag Archives: nyse

ETF Deathwatch For December 2015: AccuShares Join The List

The quantity of ETFs and ETNs on Deathwatch jumped by 23 for December. There were 28 additions and only five removals. Of those coming off, three were the result of improved health, while the other two were closed, delisted, and liquidated. The net increase pushes the membership count to a 35-month high of 366, consisting of 266 ETFs and 100 ETNs. Heading up the new arrivals are the two AccuShares ETFs, which are now more than six months old, making them eligible for Deathwatch. These two ETFs attempt to track the spot price of the VIX Volatility Index and fail miserably at doing so. They are teeter-totter ETFs, constructed much like the ill-fated MacroShares. As such, they were doomed from the start. But AccuShares added new twists that made them even worse than MacroShares in my opinion. AccuShares introduced the concept of “Corrective Distributions” that try to keep the demand for “up” shares in balance with the “down” shares. However, these distributions were both numerous and large, quickly depleting their asset bases. To overcome this, the funds made distributions of offsetting shares two months in a row: The owners of AccuShares Spot CBOE VIX Up (NASDAQ: VXUP ) received a “Corrective Distribution” of one share of AccuShares Spot CBOE VIX Down (NASDAQ: VXDN ), and owners of VXDN received a share of VXUP. It is almost impossible to bet on the direction of the VIX when offsetting positions are forced into your account. So far, the VXUP has made per-share distributions of $44.67 plus two shares of VXDN . Owners of VXDN have received $15.12 and two shares of VXUP (it’s a vicious circle). Between all the distributions, reverse splits, and offsetting shares, performance is nearly impossible to determine, and they do not even attempt to do so on the website. These products need to close before anyone else gets hurt. Once again, the majority of the new names added to ETF Deathwatch this month carry the smart-beta label. This suggests the market is currently saturated with smart-beta products, and investors need time to understand and digest all that are currently available. Three of the new additions are China-oriented funds, indicating this is another group approaching saturation. From a quantity standpoint, Global X had the most products added this month with eight of its ETFs, including all four of its new “scientific beta” line, joining the list. The average asset level of products on ETF Deathwatch increased from $6.8 million to $6.9 million, and the quantity of products with less than $2 million held steady at 73. The average age increased from 48.0 to 48.2 months, and the number of products more than five years old surged from 114 to 130. Here is the Complete List of 366 Products on ETF Deathwatch for December 2015 compiled using the objective ETF Deathwatch Criteria . The 28 ETPs added to ETF Deathwatch for December: AccuShares Spot CBOE VIX Down Shares AccuShares Spot CBOE VIX Up Shares AdvisorShares Madrona Global Bond (NYSEARCA: FWDB ) Columbia Large Cap Growth (NYSEARCA: RPX ) DB Crude Oil Long ETN (NYSEARCA: OLO ) Deutsche X-trackers MSCI All China (NYSEARCA: CN ) EGShares India Small Cap (NYSEARCA: SCIN ) ELEMENTS Morningstar Wide Moat Focus ETN (NYSEARCA: WMW ) Elkhorn S&P 500 Capital Expenditures (NASDAQ: CAPX ) ETRACS S&P 500 Gold Hedged Index ETN (NYSEARCA: SPGH ) Global X JPMorgan Efficiente (NYSEARCA: EFFE ) Global X MSCI Pakistan ETF (NYSEARCA: PAK ) Global X NASDAQ China Technology (NASDAQ: QQQC ) Global X Scientific Beta Asia ex-Japan ETF (NYSEARCA: SCIX ) Global X Scientific Beta Europe ETF (NYSEARCA: SCID ) Global X Scientific Beta Japan ETF (NYSEARCA: SCIJ ) Global X Scientific Beta US ETF (NYSEARCA: SCIU ) Global X YieldCo Index ETF (NASDAQ: YLCO ) Guggenheim International Multi-Asset Income (NYSEARCA: HGI ) iPath Pure Beta Coffee ETN (NYSEARCA: CAFE ) iShares B – Ca Rated Corporate Bond (BATS: QLTC ) iShares FactorSelect MSCI USA (NYSEARCA: LRGF ) iShares Treasury Floating Rate Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: TFLO ) Market Vectors Gulf States (NYSEARCA: MES ) PowerShares China A-Share (NYSEARCA: CHNA ) PowerShares KBW Insurance (NYSEARCA: KBWI ) WisdomTree China ex-State-Owned Enterprises (NASDAQ: CXSE ) WisdomTree Japan Quality Dividend Growth (NYSEARCA: JDG ) The 3 ETPs removed from ETF Deathwatch due to improved health: Credit Suisse Long/Short Liquid Index (Net) ETN (NYSEARCA: CSLS ) First Trust Morningstar Managed Futures Strategy (NYSEARCA: FMF ) ProShares Managed Futures Strategy (NYSEARCA: FUTS ) The 2 ETPs removed from ETF Deathwatch due to delisting: EGShares Blue Chip ETF (NYSEARCA: BCHP ) EGShares Brazil Infrastructure (NYSEARCA: BRXX ) ETF Deathwatch Archives Disclosure: Author has no positions in any of the securities mentioned and no positions in any of the companies or ETF sponsors mentioned. No income, revenue, or other compensation (either directly or indirectly) is received from, or on behalf of, any of the companies or ETF sponsors mentioned.

Oneok: Some Perspective After The Massive Fall

Oneok provided solid guidance for 2016 that boosted the stock over the last two trading days. The energy infrastructure play is positioned to meet distribution goals next year without an equity offering. The high yield at Oneok highlights the risk, but the company is positioned to survive in the current environment. Anybody reviewing the chart of Oneok (NYSE: OKE ) will see a stock that recently completed a round trip over the last four years. The stock went from roughly $20 to start 2011 to over $65 by 2014 and all the way back to below $20 recently. (click to enlarge) The company is the general partner of Oneok Partners, L.P. (NYSE: OKS ) , one of the largest publicly traded MLPs. With the sector under pressure after several years of strong performance, an opportunity likely exists in the sector now. The stock got a big bump on Monday and early Tuesday from positive 2016 guidance that claims the distribution is safe. With a dividend yield sitting at 13% prior to the announcement, a big rally isn’t a huge surprise. The question now is whether investors should chase the new 10.5% yield? On the surface, the guidance for 2016 suggests stability and the ability to cover distributions. The key tenants of the guidance were these points: FCF after dividends for Oneok. Cash on hand of $250 million at Oneok to support Oneok Partners. No public equity offering for Oneok Partners until well into 2017. Oneok Partners’ distribution coverage at 1.0x or better in 2016. The key to the whole distribution forecast is that NYMEX future strip pricing of $40 to $45 per barrel of crude doesn’t slip lower. The current price of oil won’t support the distributions. As with most energy plays including some infrastructure plays that have recently cut dividends, the whole issue of forecasts are the reliance on unstable commodity prices. With a 41.2% ownership stake in Oneok Partners, Oneok is highly reliant on the business that obtains the majority of profits from natural gas liquids. The remaining business comes from the gathering, processing and transmission of natural gas via pipelines. As with most domestic energy infrastructure plays, the business is set up for long-term growth. Low natural gas prices are set to fuel demand growth and facilitate the export of LNG around the globe. The company expects to see immediate growth from the Williston Basin where a substantial amount of gas is flared due to a previous lack of pipelines. At the same time, one-third of all ethane being rejected comes from the Oneok Partners system again providing more upside when petrochemical plants on the Gulf Coast are completed by 2017. The whole problem with an investment in Oneok is surviving the drastic fall in energy prices combined with sizable debt loads. With the shift to more fee-based contracts in 2016 and the extra cash at Oneok to support Oneok Partners survive the brutal pricing environment for commodities, the stock is a solid long-term investment in a very diversified portfolio that can absorb the risk. The recommendation is for investors to not chase Oneok higher today. Let the stock come back down before starting a position as the MLP sector likely faces more strains as other industry players undoubtedly cut dividends.

GREK Seems Just Fairly Valued, But Many Of Its Individual Stocks Are Undervalued

Summary My rough bottoms-up valuation of the GREK index reveals just fair overall valuation. Greek banks now represent less than 5% of the GREK, and I consider them a long-term call option costing me roughly 5% of the index. While the overall GREK index looks just fairly valued, the low median values reveal that there are many very cheap individual stocks. These stocks are cheap for a reason, such as high debt, falling sales and often energy sector dependence. The general theme of Greece has come out of the headlines recently. However, its banks were very much in the spotlight in the past weeks as their stocks crashed following the expected stock dilution and lukewarm interest from institutional investors to take part in the recapitalization. With the Greek banks’ bad news getting gradually priced in, I wanted to reexamine the Global X FTSE Greece 20 ETF (NYSEARCA: GREK ) index now and attempt to make a very rough bottoms-up valuation to see if there is an attractive investing opportunity. My analysis revealed several surprises and facts, which I would like to share with my readers now. Fact #1: There is very little downside risk in GREK from the Greek banks now With year-to-date returns of Alpha Bank ( OTCPK:ALBKY ), National Bank of Greece ( OTCPK:NBGGY ), Eurobank ( OTCPK:EGFEY ) and Piraeus Bank ( OTCPK:BPIRF ) up to negative 99%, the total weight of the Greek banks in GREK has been diminished to below 5%. This significantly reduces the risk of a large decline in GREK. The GREK options implied that volatility has fallen recently to reflect this lower downside risk. So I now consider the Greek banks as a call option that costs less than 5% of the GREK index and never expires. Not only is the banks’ weight on the index insignificant, but the banks are also usually valued using industry-specific valuation metrics. Valuing them using traditional broad market valuation metrics would just distort the entire picture. Due to these two facts, I decided to simply ignore the banks in the valuation and treat them as the 5% call option that never expires. So what exactly is GREK made of? Here is the list of the current top 25 holdings, representing the overwhelming majority of the total index value, sorted by their weights on the index. The holdings and their weights are updated as of December 17, 2015 and provided my Morningstar. (click to enlarge) Source: Morningstar, author’s recalculations Financial ratio metrics I recalculated the index weight values by summing up holdings of the same company in the form of its primary stock listing (usually listed in the Athens stock exchange) and its ADR form. Here is the updated list, which simplifies things and shows a clearer picture of the holdings, including the financial ratio metrics. (click to enlarge) Source: author’s calculations based on data from Bloomberg, Morningstar, Gurufocus, Yahoo finance and Finviz A quick warning on methodology Please bear in mind that some of the data was hard to get and calculate, and had to be obtained from several sources that may not be using a consistent methodology. While most data incorporates the third quarter 2015 numbers, which include the tough period of bank transaction limits, etc., some minor data was available for the June quarter only. Therefore, an error margin should be much wider than usual, at least plus and minus 20% in the valuation metrics. Otherwise, the valuation is very representative because it takes into account ~92% of the GREK index’s holdings, omitting just the ~5% attributed to the banks for the reasons described above, and also ignoring about 3% of GREK that comes from some below 1% positions. The total GREK metrics calculations are made using a weighted average, with the values being weighted by the stock’s index weight. Negative or N/A values are ignored, and the weights of the remaining valid values are increased proportionally to make up 100%. Surprising fact #2: the GREK index as a whole looks fully valued using most financial metrics The overall dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is just 1.25%, nothing to attract income investors (even if the other risks were ignored). Other metrics are not faring much better. Consider the following. Trailing-twelve-month P/E not very attractive The average trailing-twelve-month P/E of the GREK index is ~16.14x. This is roughly on par with the U.S. and many European or other indexes of economies that are in much better shape, with much more predictable future political and economic environment. So this is a big disappointment, but in times of economic distress, P/E’s may be abnormally high or low as they near bottoms. Some commodity and energy-related GREK stocks are arguably at a deep through of the current cycle. The negative P/Es were ignored, so the calculation takes into account ~86.50% of the total index; the 10% of the index has negative earnings, and the remaining 5% are the banks. The high P/E for the two largest constituents, which are not very cyclical and represent ~40% of GREK, are not very enticing. On the other hand, if we look at the more important cash earnings, the P/FCF figures for these two largest stocks are much lower and arguably quite attractive. Trailing-twelve-month Price/free cash flow is more attractive than the TTM P/E The weighted average TTM P/FCF came in at ~13.31x. This is not bad at all given what Greece and their companies have had to go through in the past twelve months, though the largest constituent, Coca Cola HBC ( OTC:CCHBF ), is predominantly export-oriented. Nevertheless, investors can buy many companies outside of Greece with even lower P/FCF ratios and arguably similar or better prospects or at least less political and economic risk, such as even Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL ), or International Business Machines (NYSE: IBM ), or Xerox (NYSE: XRX ). The P/FCF calculation includes ~85% of the index weight. About 10% of the index has negative FCF, and the remaining 5% are the banks, which were excluded. The forward P/E is even a bit worse than the TTM P/E The weighted average forward P/E currently stands at ~16.94x, as represented by just ~54% of the index. The rest of the constituents either don’t provide forward guidance or I was not able to obtain one. So the forward P/E is less representative but not very attractive nonetheless and carries a higher risk of ending significantly off the mark as many factors are either unpredictable or not factored in the guidance. The Price-to-sales and price-to-book is similar to other markets and not very attractive The weighted average P/S came in at ~1.40x and the P/B is ~1.60x. This is nothing out of the normal range typical for other markets and doesn’t really entice much buying when so many markets with similar valuations are available to international investors. However, some companies within the average show very attractively low P/S and P/B values, indicating distress but also potential attractive deep value plays for patient investors. These include the energy sector stocks, such as Motor Oil (Hellas) Corinth Refineries SA ( OTCPK:MOHCY ), Hellenic petroleum SA (ATH:ELPE), and Public Power Corporation of Greece ( OTCPK:PUPOF ), as well as others such as Ellaktor SA ( OTCPK:ELLKY ). However, many of them carry relatively high debt and other risks. The important fact #3: Using EV/EBIT and EV/EBITDA, GREK trades at about half the S&P 500 valuation The average EV/EBIT stands at ~11.6x and is calculated using 85% of the index. The remaining 10% has negative enterprise value or negative EV/EBIT and was ignored, as were the banks. The average EV/EBITDA is ~5.7x and was derived from ~88% of the stocks weight, with ~7% being EV/EBITDA negative or having negative enterprise value, with the banks being excluded again. For a comparison, the aggregate S&P 500 EV/EBITDA currently stands at around 10x while the median value is around 11x and is arguably overvalued as a group. The GREK index trades at about a half of the EV valuation of the S&P 500. In other words, GREK would have to DOUBLE in order to trade at the same valuation as the S&P 500. And EV metrics for some individual GREK stocks are even more attractive. For example, Coca Cola HBG trades at just ~3.5x EV/EBIT and 2.29 EV/EBITDA thanks to its high debt leverage. The most important fact #4: while overall GREK valuation looks full, the mean averages are much lower, signaling plenty of individual stock opportunities in GREK While mean valuations for the U.S. indexes are mostly higher than the weighted average, in GREK, the opposite is true. There are many stocks cheaper than the overall index. In other words, while the U.S. S&P index valuation masks how expensive many of its individual stocks are, the GREK index’s seemingly unattractive overall valuation hides many undervalued stocks beneath the surface. For example, the median P/B is just 0.91, below 1x, signaling clear distress in parts of the index, especially the energy. I believe it is worth it for investors to go through the individual Greek stocks and pick the best spots rather than buy the overall index, which in itself is only fairly priced and future returns will be just average in my opinion (5% to 10% per year with high political and economic risk). Several GREK individual stock ideas for further research 1. Coca Cola HBC While the company trades at a seemingly high P/E and forward P/E, the cash metric, trailing P/FCF is sitting at just ~11x. 3.5x EV/EBIT and 2.29 EV/EBITDA are very low as well. The problem, of course, is the relatively high debt/capital ratio as well as other potential risks that need to be analyzed in more detail before buying. 2. Several other companies There are many companies trading at very attractive valuation metrics, and their individual risk profiles and future outlooks have to be carefully examined before jumping in. These include Athens Water Supply & Sewerage ( OTCPK:AHWSF ), Folli Follie ( OTCPK:FLLIY ), and Greek Organisation of Football Prognostics ( OTCPK:GOFPY ). 3. Many energy-related bargains, mostly carrying higher risk Metka SA trades at just ~6x P/E. However, it is FCF negative. As an engineering contractor, it has been negatively impacted by the energy sector weakness. However, the 2.28x EV/EBIT and 1.45x EV/EBITDA look very cheap if the company manages to survive through the downcycle. There are also several companies trading at depressed valuations due to being closely tied to falling energy prices, such as Public Power Corporation of Greece , Motor Oil (Hellas) Corinth Refineries , and Hellenic petroleum (ATH:ELPE) and Ellaktor , which trade at rock-bottom P/S ratios but carry mostly very high risk due to low commodity prices and high debt. Risks Besides the specific risks in the individual stocks, such as debt and falling sales and margins, the GREK and its constituents are prone to very high political and economic risks that may include higher taxes, price controls, and even an outright nationalization or semi-permanent strikes, revolutions, and boycotts of local sales by the local population. Conclusion While the overall GREK index does not look cheap given all the extra risks involved with Greece, the low median valuations reveal that there are many individual companies in the index that are attractively priced. However, they also carry individual risks such as high debt and more. Some individual stocks worth further investigation include Coca Cola HBG, Metka, Athens Water Supply & Sewerage, Folli Follie, and Greek Organisation of Football Prognostics. There are also several energy-related companies trading at distressed P/S ratios carrying high debt and cyclical risk. Editor’s Note: This article discusses one or more securities that do not trade on a major U.S. exchange. Please be aware of the risks associated with these stocks.