Tag Archives: nysearcabcm

Can Investors Achieve Commodity Exposure Via Equities?

By Wesley R. Gray, Ph.D. This past year we examined the possibility of replicating commodity exposure via equities. The project was spurred by an insightful research report from MSCI , which showed some impressive results. Other research outfits have proposed similar concepts . The figure below, taken from the MSCI report, highlights how well the MSCI Select Commodity Producers Index replicates various commodity indices over 2010-2012: (click to enlarge) The results are hypothetical, are NOT an indicator of future results, and do NOT represent returns that any investor actually attained. Indexes are unmanaged, do not reflect management or trading fees, and one cannot invest directly in an index. Additional information regarding the construction of these results is available upon request. We replicate these results and come to similar conclusions: Correlations for commodities and commodity-related-equities are > .8 from 2010-2012. However … and this is a big however… When we look at a longer out-of-sample period, from 1991 to 2014, correlations are much lower (the best versions of our algorithms can get the correlation in the .6-.7 range after intense data-mining). The executive summary below is from a 125-page internal report we did on commodity via equity replication. The correlation figures represent the full-sample correlations between the underlying commodities and some of our top replication techniques. Clearly, the evidence below suggests that we should be skeptical of claims that commodity exposures can be effectively replicated via commodity-related equities. Especially, when the sample period analyzed is short. (click to enlarge) The results are hypothetical, are NOT an indicator of future results, and do NOT represent returns that any investor actually attained. Indexes are unmanaged, do not reflect management or trading fees, and one cannot invest directly in an index. Additional information regarding the construction of these results is available upon request. Understanding Commodity Replication via Equities Accessing commodity exposures can be complicated. Consider oil exposure: Buy oil futures? The oil ETF? Oil stocks? Each of these option has pros and cons. Futures Futures appear straight forward, and require less margin than equities; however, these contracts trade in large notional amounts (eliminating the option for retail investors), incur transaction costs (potential roll costs and other transaction costs), and trading futures should not be viewed as a buy-and-hold investment (e.g., see research here and here ). Many investors view commodity futures like stocks, where an investor simply buys and holds over the long term and grinds out the equity risk premium. But this is not the right frame of thinking. Commodity futures aren’t equities. Futures are a traded asset class, and being active – not passive – is the only way to capture the potential risk premiums offered by commodities (e.g., term structure). ETFs that own futures One can buy an oil ETF that owns oil futures, which is simple and requires less capital, but there are management fees, and these funds still have embedded future trading costs. Stock replication One could also explore investing in stocks that are in the oil business. This approach has some huge potential benefits: tax-efficiency (i.e., deferral), simplicity, no roll risks, dividend payments, etc. However, the biggest risk is that oil stocks may not necessarily capture the exposure of oil future prices. For example, some oil producers may hedge production, thus limiting their business exposure to underlying oil price fluctuations, and thus, their correlation to the underlying commodity. In order to deal with this risk, one needs to engineer a specific portfolio and actively manage the exposures. How to Replicate Commodity Futures via Equity Portfolios In this piece, we look at different algorithms that form portfolios meant to capture commodity risk exposure via equities. To facilitate understanding, we focus on an analysis of the energy sector. In order to replicate commodity returns with stocks, we look at 3 approaches (one can mix and match or add additional techniques, but these are the big muscle movements): Identify commodity-related sectors and the associated stocks (e.g., oil sectors stocks should follow oil more than information technology stocks would). Identify % revenue generated by specific sectors (e.g., an oil stock that generates 95% of its revenue from the oil sector is better than one with 51%). Identify past correlations between stocks and commodities (e.g., an oil stock with a 90% historical correlation is better than one with a 50% correlation). In the end, we perform a variety of data-mining techniques that mix and match various elements to try and data-fit the portfolios that have the highest correlation out-of-sample. Here is an example combination approach that seems to be most effective in our research: Identify companies in a specific SIC sector (e.g., primary SIC code is energy). Confirm that the firms identified have 50%+ of their revenue from energy For firms identified in steps 1 and 2, calculate rolling past 12-month correlations with energy returns. Purchase the top 10% highest correlated firms (can equal-weight or value-weight the portfolio) Monthly re-balance. Some Example Results SP500 = S&P 500 Total Return Index future_energy_ew = equal-weighted across 6 energy futures (natural gas, crude oil, Brent crude, gasoline, heating oil, and gas oil) equity_energy_ew_12m daily corr = equal-weighted, top 10% 12-month rolling correlation using daily returns, re-balance at the end of month equity_energy_vw_12m daily corr = value-weighted, top 10% 12-month rolling correlation using daily returns, re-balance at the end of the month Results are gross of fees. All returns are total returns and include the reinvestment of distributions (e.g., dividends). Indexes are unmanaged, do not reflect management or trading fees, and one cannot invest directly in an index. Summary Performance 1992/05 to 2014/12 (click to enlarge) The results are hypothetical, are NOT an indicator of future results, and do NOT represent returns that any investor actually attained. Indexes are unmanaged, do not reflect management or trading fees, and one cannot invest directly in an index. Additional information regarding the construction of these results is available upon request. The correlation results are not promising – average correlation is 65-67% – a far cry from the 90%+ results we’d like to see if we wanted to replicate commodity future returns with equity. Invested Growth 1992/05 to 2014/12 (click to enlarge) The results are hypothetical, are NOT an indicator of future results, and do NOT represent returns that any investor actually attained. Indexes are unmanaged, do not reflect management or trading fees, and one cannot invest directly in an index. Additional information regarding the construction of these results is available upon request. Energy-related stocks don’t track energy sector futures that well over time. Looking inside the black box: Sample stock names as of 2014/12/31, market cap in millions (click to enlarge) The results are hypothetical, are NOT an indicator of future results, and do NOT represent returns that any investor actually attained. Indexes are unmanaged, do not reflect management or trading fees, and one cannot invest directly in an index. Additional information regarding the construction of these results is available upon request. Conclusion Based on the analysis above, replicating commodity futures via equity is mediocre, at best. In contrast to MSCI, we’re not convinced . Determining if commodity exposure is a benefit to a portfolio is a complex issue, but given that one believes in the benefit of exposing a portfolio to the commodity sector, trying to access these exposures via equity replication probably isn’t going to work that well… at least not as well as previously contemplated. Original Post

ETF Deathwatch For January 2015: The Year Begins At 322

ETF Deathwatch begins 2015 with 322 products on the list, consisting of 222 ETFs and 100 ETNs. Fourteen names joined the lineup this month and nineteen exited. Just nine came off due to improved health, while the other ten met their death and no longer exist. Despite the closure of about 450 ETFs and ETNs over the past decade, there are still 322 zombie products remaining, and they average just $6.4 million in assets. The average age of these products is 47 months, more than enough time to attract a little investor interest. Clearly, these products are neither desired by investors nor profitable for their sponsors, making one tend to wonder why they still exist. The fourteen new names on the list this month include a dozen based on MSCI indexes, nine ‘quality’ ETFs from State Street SPDRs, and two ‘low volatility’ products from BlackRock iShares. There are dozens of successful products tracking MSCI indexes, carrying SPDR and iShares brands, and pursuing factor-based strategies, yet these new additions are struggling. The recipe for success obviously requires more than just having the right ingredients. Thirty-six brand names appear on ETF Deathwatch, and two of these brands have their entire product line on the list. All five Columbia ETFs are included. These actively managed funds have been on the market about five years, yet none have gathered more than $10 million in assets. QuantShares is the sponsor of four ETFs, all more than three years old, all with less than $4 million in assets, and all on ETF Deathwatch. It’s now 2015, which means a second calendar year has come and gone without the iPath Short Enhanced MSCI Emerging Markets Index ETN (NYSEARCA: EMSA ) registering a single trade. November 9, 2012 was the last time EMSA saw any action, and there were only 100 shares traded that day. It was just one of eight products going the entire month of December without a transaction. Additionally, 145 products failed to register any volume on the last day of the year. Here is the Complete List of 322 Products on ETF Deathwatch for January 2015 compiled using the objective ETF Deathwatch Criteria . The 14 ETPs added to ETF Deathwatch for January: First Trust ISE Global Platinum (NASDAQ: PLTM ) iPath Bloomberg Industrial Metals ETN (NYSEARCA: JJM ) iShares MSCI Asia ex Japan Minimum Volatility (NYSEARCA: AXJV ) iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Consumer Discretionary (NASDAQ: EMDI ) iShares MSCI Europe Minimum Volatility (NYSEARCA: EUMV ) SPDR MSCI Australia Quality Mix (NYSEARCA: QAUS ) SPDR MSCI Canada Quality Mix (NYSEARCA: QCAN ) SPDR MSCI EAFE Quality Mix (NYSEARCA: QEFA ) SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Mix (NYSEARCA: QEMM ) SPDR MSCI Germany Quality Mix (NYSEARCA: QDEU ) SPDR MSCI Japan Quality Mix (NYSEARCA: QJPN ) SPDR MSCI Spain Quality Mix (NYSEARCA: QESP ) SPDR MSCI United Kingdom Quality Mix (NYSEARCA: QGBR ) SPDR MSCI World Quality Mix (NYSEARCA: QWLD ) The 9 ETPs removed from ETF Deathwatch due to improved health: First Trust Developed Markets x-US Small Cap AlphaDEX (NYSEARCA: FDTS ) First Trust Managed Municipal (NASDAQ: FMB ) Global X Junior MLP ETF (NYSEARCA: MLPJ ) iPath Pure Beta Broad Commodity ETN (NYSEARCA: BCM ) iShares Currency Hedged MSCI EAFE ETF (NYSEARCA: HEFA ) PowerShares DB Crude Oil Short ETN (NYSEARCA: SZO ) ProShares Global Listed Private Equity (BATS: PEX ) RevenueShares ADR (NYSEARCA: RTR ) Teucrium Soybean (NYSEARCA: SOYB ) The 10 ETPs removed from ETF Deathwatch due to delisting: Market Vectors Bank and Brokerage (NYSEARCA: RKH ) Market Vectors Colombia (NYSEARCA: COLX ) Market Vectors Germany Small-Cap (NYSEARCA: GERJ ) Market Vectors Latin America Small-Cap (NYSEARCA: LATM ) Market Vectors Renminbi Bond (NYSEARCA: CHLC ) Teucrium Natural Gas (NYSEARCA: NAGS ) Teucrium WTI Crude Oil (NYSEARCA: CRUD ) EGShares Emerging Markets Dividend Growth (NYSEARCA: EMDG ) EGShares Emerging Markets Dividend High Income (NYSEARCA: EMHD ) Direxion Daily Gold Bear 3x Shares (NYSEARCA: BARS ) ETF Deathwatch Archives Disclosure covering writer, editor, and publisher: No positions in any of the securities mentioned . No positions in any of the companies or ETF sponsors mentioned. No income, revenue, or other compensation (either directly or indirectly) received from, or on behalf of, any of the companies or ETF sponsors mentioned.