Tag Archives: nyse

Surprise! Electric Utilities Lead The Market

It may be a sign of the strange times in which we live, but utilities that provide us with electricity have emerged as a leading industry group. This traditionally boring group is ranked No. 9 out of 197. It’s likely that low interest rates are forcing income investors to seek dividend-paying stocks. Also, growth stocks remain out of favor, and money managers might be seeking the relative safety of utilities. Some of the stocks in this group have broken out of bases, but chart readers aren’t usually drawn to them for an intermediate move. Investors who buy them usually do so because they expect them to generate income for a number of years. Also, if the current rally strengthens, money managers are likely to cast them aside in favor of growth stocks. A dozen stocks in the 38-member group have Composite Ratings of 90 or above. The No. 1 stock in the group is ITC Holdings ( ITC ) with a Composite Rating of 97.  It owns transmission systems that carry electricity to customers in Michigan’s Lower Peninsula and portions of Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas and Oklahoma. Last month, the company announced that it is merging with Canada-based Fortis, which operates electric and gas utilities, in a deal valued at $11.3 billion. The company said the merger is accretive to earnings and that shareholders will see a meaningful dividend increase, which now equals an annualized yield of 1.8%. As part of the deal, Fortis will apply to list its shares on the NYSE. ITC’s stock has meandered out of a cup-with-handle base and is barely within the 5% buy zone from a 40.84 buy point. Pinnacle West ( PNW ) is the No. 2 company in the group with a Composite Rating of 96. It’s a holding company for Arizona Public Service, which supplies electricity to 1.2 million customers in Arizona and co-owns the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating  Station, the largest nuclear plant in the U.S. and a primary source of electricity in the southwest. The company is benefiting from Arizona’s population and economic growth. It recently raised its dividend for the fifth straight year. It’s the equivalent of an annualized yield of 3.4%. Pinnacle meandered out of a saucer-with-handle base with a 70.10 buy point and is still within the buy zone. Atlanta-based Southern Co . ( SO ) has a Composite Rating of 96. It generates and distributes electricity to 4.4 million customers in Alabama, Mississippi, Florida and Georgia with a generating capacity of 46,000 megawatts. It also has just emerged from a saucer-and-handle base and is only 1% above a 50.34 buy point. But volume was missing on the breakout. The annualized dividend yield is 4.3%. The five-year annualized earnings growth rate is 4%. Analysts expect a 2% EPS decline this year and a 5% increase in 2017. Image provided by Shutterstock .  

The Best And Worst Of February: Market Neutral Funds

The 68 mutual funds and ETFs in the market neutral category averaged modest gains of 0.08% in February while flows to the category turned positive for the first time since September 2014. The Vanguard Market Neutral Fund (MUTF: VMNIX ) was February’s biggest recipient of inflows, at roughly $279 million, while the AQR Diversified Arbitrage Fund (MUTF: ADAIX ) suffered the month’s steepest outflows at $295 million. Neither of the funds, which posted respective February returns of 1.55% and 1.33%, ranked in the top or bottom three performers for the month, though. Best Performers in February The three best-performing market neutral funds in February were: The QuantShares US Market Neutral Value Fund was February’s top-performing fund, returning +3.83%. Unfortunately, for shareholders, the fund’s one-year performance through February 29 stood at -6.35%, ranking in the bottom 13% of the category. For the three years ending Leap Day 2015, CHEP returned an annualized -0.52%. Its February outperformance is evidence of its more-volatile-than-average nature, with a one-year standard deviation of 6.45% compared to the category average of 4.81%. On a three-year basis, CHEP looks even less predictable, with annualized volatility of 7.70% compared to the category average of 4.25%. The Cognios Market Neutral Large Cap Fund, by contrast, returned a solid +2.45% in February and had one-year returns of +11.07% through the end of the month. Those annual gains were good enough to rank in the top 7% of its peers, and its three-year annualized returns through February 29 stood at an impressive +9.57%, ranking in the top 4% of the category. For the past year, COGIX has been even more volatile than CHEP, with a standard deviation of 8.01%. But COGIX’s one- and three-year alphas of 7.60% and 9.62% – relative to the returns of the Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Total Return Index – more than make up for its outsized volatility. Finally, the Causeway Global Absolute Return Value Fund) ranked third in February, with returns of +2.40%. Its annual returns through the end of the month stood at a less impressive -0.48%, ranking it near the middle of the category. Over the longer term, however, CGAIX’s three-year returns of +4.11% were good enough to rank in the top 11% of market neutral funds over that time span. Worst Performers in February The three worst performing market neutral funds in February were: Mother’s Day comes in May, but February was unkind to MOM. The QuantShares US Market Neutral Momentum Fund, which sports the “MOM” ticker symbol, was the worst performer of its kind last month, losing 6.14%. Nevertheless, the ultra-volatile MOM – with its annual standard deviation of 12.66% – was still up 10.68% for the year, as of February 29, and its three-year annualized returns through that date stood at +3.24%. The TFS Market Neutral and BlackRock Global Long/Short Equity funds tied as the second-worst market neutral performers in February, with one-month returns of -3.97%. The funds’ one-year returns were also uninspiring at -6.85% and -6.75%, respectively. But over the three-year period, the BlackRock fund’s annualized gains of 2.89% greatly outdid the TFS fund’s annualized losses of 0.84%. Past performance does not necessarily predict future results. Jason Seagraves contributed to this article.