Tag Archives: onload

The Lesson From PXMC: Investors Shouldn’t Rely On Average Trading Volume

Summary I’m taking a look at PXMC as a candidate for inclusion in my ETF portfolio. Looking at the liquidity by the average trading volume is misleading in this case. Looking at number of days where no shares traded hands provides a different picture. I like the ETF for being intelligently designed, but I can’t accept the combination of expense ratios and poor liquidity. Investors should be seeking to improve their risk-adjusted returns. I’m a big fan of using ETFs to achieve the risk-adjusted returns relative to the portfolios that a normal investor can generate for themselves after trading costs. I’m working on building a new portfolio and I’m going to be analyzing several of the ETFs that I am considering for my personal portfolio. One of the funds that I’m considering is the PowerShares Fundamental Pure Mid Core Portfolio ETF (NYSEARCA: PXMC ). I’ll be performing a substantial portion of my analysis along the lines of modern portfolio theory, so my goal is to find ways to minimize costs while achieving diversification to reduce my risk level. What does PXMC do? PXMC uses an indexing approach to track the performance of the RAFI® Fundamental Mid Core Index. The ETF falls under the category of “Mid-Cap Blend.” Does PXMC provide diversification benefits to a portfolio? Each investor may hold a different portfolio, but I use SPDR S&P 500 Trust ETF (NYSEARCA: SPY ) as the basis for my analysis. I believe SPY, or another large cap U.S. fund with similar properties, represents the reasonable first step for many investors designing an ETF portfolio. Therefore, I start my diversification analysis by seeing how it works with SPY. I start with an ANOVA table: (click to enlarge) The correlation measured on a daily basis is beautiful at just over 76%. I want to see low correlations, and that is exactly what I’m finding in PXMC. However, the reliability of that correlation depends on the liquidity of the ETF. If shares aren’t trading hands, no change in price is recorded, and it appears that the value was steady even if the net asset value was changing in correlation with SPY. Standard deviation of daily returns (dividend adjusted, measured since January 2012) The standard deviation is mediocre. For PXMC it is .818%. For SPY, it is 0.736% for the same period. SPY usually has a lower level of standard deviation than other ETFs, so being a little bit above SPY isn’t too bad. With the low correlation, the ETF could still do fairly well under Modern Portfolio Theory. Why I use standard deviation of daily returns I don’t believe historical returns have predictive power for future returns, but I do believe historical values for standard deviations of returns relative to other ETFs have some predictive power on future risks and correlations. Liquidity is inconsistent The average trading volume can change dramatically depending on when investors look at it. Unfortunately, the volume can spike quite substantially. Over the 3 year time period, the average trading volume is under 1,500 shares per day. However, there are also days where over 40,000 shares change hands. In my opinion, this is a fairly dangerous liquidity situation for investors. Yield The distribution yield is 1.26%. For such an illiquid ETF, a higher distribution yield would be fairly nice for investors that were seeking to see some income from their position. The poor liquidity doesn’t bode well for investors that have to sell portions of their position to generate income. Expense Ratio The ETF has a net expense ratio of .39% and a gross expense ratio of .69%. The net expense ratio isn’t too bad, as long as it doesn’t eventually change to reflect the gross expense ratio. Market to NAV The ETF is at a .08% premium to NAV currently. When I first looked at the ETF a few weeks ago, it was trading at a .05% discount to NAV. A price swing of .13% in a few weeks wouldn’t bother me at all, but I am concerned when the discount or premium to NAV can swing that way. It reinforces my concerns about liquidity. I wouldn’t feel comfortable trading on this unless I was very confident that I had up to the minute data on the NAV. Largest Holdings The diversification is pretty good in this ETF. (click to enlarge) Conclusion I haven’t found much luck in finding a mid-cap portfolio that really appeals to me. I would love for this to be the one, but I don’t trust the statistics after seeing the poor liquidity. The average trading volume would make investors believe it held some liquidity, if they happened to look shortly after one of the spikes in volume. However, the 71 days with 0 trading volume create a real concern for me. If those days were largely behind the ETF, I wouldn’t be willing to move past it as well. However, upon closer inspection only 47 of the days had occurred before January of 2014. The other 24 days had to occur within 2014. That’s a substantial portion of the trading days. The holdings have reasonable diversification and the performance hasn’t been bad. If I thought I could leverage the poor liquidity into a meaningful discount on an entry position, then I would find that quite appealing. However, with the volume being 0 on so many days I don’t think there are many sellers willing to cross a large spread and sell at a meaningful discount to NAV. I might find the ETF fairly appealing if I was able to immediately locate deviations from NAV in real time, but I’m not looking for that level of complexity in entering a position. In a year or two, I may be looking to experiment in that realm and I would definitely consider this ETF again at that point. On the other hand, if the ETF’s liquidity improved, I would find that very appealing and would want to take another look at the ETF and test the correlation again without so many days with a volume of 0. The PowerShares portfolios I have looked at recently have had higher expense ratios, but the selection of securities seemed to be intelligent and the performance history has held up. I like those factors and would consider handling poor liquidity or a high expense ratio, but not both. Disclosure: The author has no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (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. The analyst holds a diversified portfolio including mutual funds or index funds which may include a small long exposure to the stock.

Have Bonds Lost Their Safe Haven Status To Gold?

Summary Price correlations have changed. Bonds no longer trade inversely to stocks. Bonds are no longer the safe haven. Gold is the new market safe haven. Traditionally speaking, bonds and stocks have traded inversely to each other . This is evident if one looks at these charts below. In 2008, the TLT (a bond ETF) went up in value, whereas the Dow crashed. In 2009, the TLT declined in value, whereas the Dow began its new bull market. But in 2011, that traditional correlation changed. In 2011, the bond market started to rise in correlation with the stock market. The bond market didn’t rise in an esclator like fashion such as the stock market, but it did rise in correlation with the stock market. This new correlation can be attributed to foreigners buying US assets , combined with the fact that the Federal Reserve was buying US treasuries, thus suppressing interest rates. Foreigners weren’t just buying US stocks, they have also bought US real estate as well . This form of flight capital and QE, has now made all US assets rise contemporaneously. In 2011, this wasn’t the only correlation that changed, as the two charts below show. As you can see from 2005-07, the price of gold rose in correlation with the stock market. Then in 2008, during the financial crisis, the price of gold declined with the stock market. From 2009-2011, Gold and the Dow, both rose in value. In 2011, however, that correlation changed. Gold started to decline in value, while the stock market keep rising. In my opinion, the one correlation that hasn’t changed, is the one between gold and bonds. Looking at the two charts below, I think they have always traded inversely of each other. From 2005 to 2007, gold rose in value, while the bond market remained relatively flat. During the ’08 crisis, bonds rose almost vertically, while the price of gold declined briefly. After the 08 crisis, the price of gold rose drastically, while the bond market declined. Lastly, in 2011, the bond market started to rise in value, while gold started its decline. Conclusion As stated above, one can see the price correlations have changed, this is likely due to global quantitative easing . If there is another crash, or foreigners loose confidence in the US markets, stocks and bonds will have a high a probability of declining in value at the same time, and unlike previous market panics, gold will be the new safe haven, and not bonds. I am not saying there will be a market crash soon, but if there is, it won’t be bonds that will perform well (like they did in 2008), it will be gold. Disclosure: The author has no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (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.

Fund Investors Look For Comfort In Bond Funds

By Tom Roseen Despite U.S. stocks pushing to record highs for the first time in 2015 during the flows week ended February 18, investors continued to pad the coffers of fixed income funds. At the end of the week the minutes of the Federal Reserve’s latest policy meeting indicated officials were not in any hurry to raise interest rates, with many Fed members opining that a premature hike in rates could harm the economy. And, while the stock market showed a muted reaction to the minutes, the benchmark ten-year Treasury yield declined 6 basis points to close the flows week down to 2.07%-but still considerably higher than the lows seen at the beginning of February. During the flows week fund investors injected net new money into three of Lipper’s four broad-based fund macro-groups (including conventional funds and exchange-traded funds [ETFs]). Bond funds (+$5.9 billion) took in the largest haul, followed by equity funds (+$3.7 billion) and municipal bond funds (+$0.1 billion), while money market funds handed back some $14.1 billion-for their largest weekly net redemption since the week ended October 17, 2014. (click to enlarge) Source: Lipper, a Thomson Reuters company For the seventh consecutive week corporate investment-grade debt funds attracted the largest sum of net new money of the fixed income macro-group, taking in a net $3.0 billion for the week, while corporate high-yield funds took in some $1.6 billion-for their fourth week of net inflows in a row. Despite investors’ embracing the thought that the Fed will not be raising interest rates anytime soon, a subset of the corporate investment-grade debt funds group – bank loan funds – witnessed net inflows (+$130 million) for the first week in thirty-two. Share this article with a colleague