Tag Archives: outlook

America’s Retirement Crisis: Financial Advisors’ Daily Digest

SA Dividends, Income & Retirement Editor Robyn Conti here, subbing in for Gil, who’s observing Passover this week. I’ll do my best to fill his very talented and knowledgeable shoes and continue to keep you up to date daily on the latest FA analysis and news here on Seeking Alpha. It’s no secret that America’s retirement system is in crisis. We are well aware that Social Security and Medicare need shoring up, and that workers today aren’t saving enough to create the financially secure and comfortable retirements most of us dream about. SA contributor Kevin Wilson presents a rather gloomy picture of how truly dire the circumstances of our nation’s retirees and near-retirees are in Of Mice And Men: The Retirement Crisis In America . He aptly points out that traditional retirement planning assumptions have broken down over the past few years, and that savers can no longer rely on tried-and-true investment methods like asset allocation because expected returns across all asset classes are bunk due to central banks’ insistence on ZIRP and NIRP policies across the globe. So what does that mean for the best laid plans of retirees and near-retirees? Wilson writes: The crux of the problem then is the low expected returns on all types of investments, as discussed briefly above and mentioned by many other analysts. As a consequence, the average person must either withdraw much less from their investments in retirement than they actually will need (i.e., accept a lower standard of living), or as mentioned above, retire significantly later than planned or save a multiple of what was assumed above. National data suggest that the average investor has been chasing yield in a vain attempt to make up the difference through investment magic. Unfortunately, yield chasing doesn’t end well historically, and there are already signs that it is failing now… Wilson then goes on to cite programs that desperately need reform at the government level, i.e., Social Security and Medicare — which he calls the “bedrock” of retirement planning — and discusses strategies for addressing the problem of low investment returns. It’s an interesting read, and Wilson makes several valid points that, in this author’s humble opinion, hold a lot of water, and are definitely worthy of consideration by our lawmakers and others with the power to affect the changes we all want to see in the retirement world. In defiance of reliance on Social Security and Medicare, self-proclaimed “geezer” George Schneider summons the wisdom of the Oracle of Omaha Warren Buffett in his piece, How Greedy Retirees Steal Candy From Fearful Babies , touting the old adage investors know so well: “be greedy when others are fearful.” Schneider touts interest rate-sensitive stocks, especially REITs, advising that now is the time for the income-oriented and dividend-hungry to jump in while prices are down and investors are fearful, to reap those profits when markets “normalize.” Here are a few more posts from the day that contain items of interest for financial advisors: What are your thoughts? Are recession fears overblown? Comment below.

The Dangers Of Triple Levered ETFs

In a previous article , we explained why “buying oil” using ETFs comes with an overlooked set of complications. Well, things get even more messy if you want to amplify returns using leveraged ETFs. Investors should completely avoid trading any type of ETF, levered or unlevered, unless they understand exactly what’s going on under the hood. And that means actually taking the time to read the mammoth prospectus of the product in question. We know most amateur traders never bother to look at a 190-page prospectus. And so, with the recent popularity of oil gambling , we thought it prudent to dissect the triple-levered oil ETN – the VelocityShares 3x Long Crude Oil ETN (NYSEARCA: UWTI ). We can only hope that a few of you will listen to our warning and not burn through your precious account balance in the levered oil casino. To be clear, ETNs like UWTI are technically not ETFs. ETNs are “exchange traded notes.” An exchange traded note is a senior, unsecured debt security that a bank issues. Here’s a quick review of what these debt terms mean: These notes are tied to a benchmark. The bank promises to pay the investor the performance of the benchmark minus fees. UWTI is the Credit Suisse backed, 3x levered-long crude oil ETN. It tracks the daily movements of the S&P GSCI® Crude Oil Index while offering three times the index’s daily gain or loss. This means that if the oil index rallies 1%, UWTI should rally about 3%. And if the oil index falls 1%, then UWTI should fall about 3%. Keep in mind that the oil index itself does not track the spot price of oil perfectly. It suffers from the same problems we outlined here due to the “roll effect” in the futures market. You can see below that the index never really recovered from the 2008 fall. Click to enlarge Oil’s price fluctuations are volatile as it is. But if you throw 3x-leverage on top of them, you’ll get returns more unpredictable than next week’s lotto numbers. That’s what you’re facing when trading something like UWTI. This unpredictability is due to something called volatility drag. Vol drag is a well-known concept in professional quant land. It occurs in all price series due to negative compounding, but its effect is exacerbated and easier to see in a levered ETN like UWTI. Vol drag is not as complex as quants make it out to be. To understand vol drag, all you need to know is that a loss hurts more than a comparative gain. Imagine your account earns 10% one week and loses 10% the next. If you started with $100, your account would go up to $110, and then down to $99. The result would be a net-loss. You do not end up break-even and back at $100 as many would believe. Negative compounding prevents that from happening. The reality of negative compounding is what creates vol drag. The more price fluctuates up and down, the more you lose out. And if you take this same situation and apply 3x the leverage to it, the downside becomes even worse. Using the 3x-levered UWTI as an example, let’s say the oil index started at $100, gained 10% one day and then lost 9% the next. This would translate into UWTI gaining 30% on day 1 and falling by 27% the next. For simplicity reasons, let’s say that UWTI is also priced at $100 a share. The chart below shows the final values of the oil index and the leveraged ETF. The index ends up right around where it started. But UWTI falls lower than the index and actually finds itself underwater! The leverage embedded in UWTI causes this underperformance, which then compounds over time and has a large negative effect on total returns. Many investors fail to realize that placing a long oil bet in UWTI is far more complex than guessing if the price of oil will be $20 higher or lower next year. These gamblers that are long UWTI are also making a realized volatility bet. Realized volatility is a quant measure for how much price oscillates up and down. If price oscillates wildly, realized vol will be high. If price moves smoothly in a slow “drip drip” fashion, then realized vol will be low. The higher realized volatility you have, the more vol drag you get. And as we saw above, vol drag is not good for returns. Going back to our oil example, if oil rises and the path is smooth, then the uninformed gamblers can thank lady luck. UWTI will greatly outperform by avoiding vol drag. But if the path higher is noisy with wild oscillations, UWTI will track prices horribly and suffer in performance from major vol drag. The graphs below illustrate this effect: Click to enlarge In both these examples, the oil index goes from 100 to about 131. But they take very different paths to get there. In the example on the left, the index finishes at 131 in a smooth “drip drip” fashion. UWTI finishes around 171. The gambler outperformed. Index 31% gain. Gambler 71% gain. Fire up the jets to Cancun baby! On the right, the index finishes at 131 as well, but the path looks more like a hi-speed roller coaster ride. In contrast to the smooth scenario, UWTI finishes right around 100. Uh oh. Index 31% gain. Gambler 0%. No vacation this year. So even though the oil index finished higher, UWTI made NO money at all. Zip. Nada. Zilch. And here lies the plight of gambling with levered ETFs. If the price path is noisy and jagged, you end up with poor results, even if you were ultimately right on the direction of the index! If you’re wrong, and the oil index finishes lower, forget about it. Your account is taking heavy damage and your spouse is about ready with the divorce papers. The administrators of the UWTI ETN actually talk about this in the prospectus, but of course, no one reads it. “Daily rebalancing will impair the performance of the ETNs if the applicable Index experiences volatility from day to day and such performance will be dependent on the path of daily returns during the holder’s holding period. At higher ranges of volatility, there is a significant chance of a complete loss of the value of the ETNs even if the performance of the applicable Index is flat.” If you want to compete in this game over the long run, then stick with trading outright oil futures rather than UWTI, the VelocityShares 3x Inverse Crude Oil ETN (NYSEARCA: DWTI ), or even The United States Oil ETF, LP (NYSEARCA: USO ). Don’t gamble. If you’re unfamiliar with futures and how they work, we wrote a special report on them specifically for beginners. Good luck out there. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Measuring Performance Vs. A Benchmark: The Case Of The Low Volatility Factor

When is tracking error not really an error? By Nick Kalivas, Senior Equity Product Strategist, Invesco PowerShares Traditional indexes were never intended to define what makes a sound investment opportunity, which has fueled the popularity of factor-based investing. But they do serve as useful benchmarks for investment performance. How closely a portfolio or index tracks a particular benchmark index is referred to as “tracking error.” Tracking error is often considered in the context of a portfolio relative to an underlying index. But tracking error can also exist between two indexes, which raises questions. Take, for example, the case of low volatility investing – one of the most popular investment factors in use today. Could the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index – a commonly used barometer of low volatility stock performance – result in too much tracking error relative to its parent index, the S&P 500 Index? Because the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index selects 100 stocks from its parent index with the lowest realized volatility over the previous year, the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index can have sector exposure that is materially underweight or overweight relative to the S&P 500 Index. Should this be a concern? That depends on your perspective. The relationships between tracking error and low volatility exposure The table below shows the impact of blending the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index with the S&P 500 Index over a five-year period. It reveals a number of informational nuggets. Relationship between low volatility exposure, tracking error and performance April 30, 2011, through March 31, 2016 Source: Bloomberg L.P., March 31, 2016. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. First off, note the correlation between factor tilt and performance. During this time period, investors who had more low volatility exposure realized higher absolute and risk-adjusted returns. By itself, an allocation to the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index outperformed the S&P 500 Index by 22.5% (13.60% to 11.10%), with 24.4% less volatility (9.30% to 12.30%) over the five-year period. The results are consistent with the low volatility anomaly, which states that low volatility stocks may outperform higher volatility stocks and the broader market on an absolute and risk-adjusted basis.1 Note that the return per unit of risk increases as the low volatility factor tilt increases (0.90 for a 100% S&P 500 Index allocation, for example, to 1.22 with a 50-50 blend). Also note the proportional correlation between allocation to the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index and tracking error. The chart below plots this relationship alongside risk-adjusted return. Source: Bloomberg L.P., March 31, 2016. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. As you can see, the relationship between low volatility factor exposure and tracking error is linear. Tracking error is relatively small when small amounts of low volatility are blended into the S&P 500 Index. A portfolio with a 30% weighting in low volatility stocks, for example, had less than a 2.50% tracking error to the S&P 500 Index; 50-50 blend produced 4% tracking error. Keep in mind, though, that risk-adjusted returns also improved with increased tracking error. What all of this implies is that investors and their advisors can mix and match according to their comfort level. Blending material amounts of the low volatility factor into a portfolio will likely lead to increased tracking error relative to the S&P 500 Index, but can also enhance the performance of a portfolio on both an absolute and risk adjusted basis. What’s your choice? Learn more about the PowerShares S&P 500 Low Volatility Portfolio (NYSEARCA: SPLV ). Read more blogs by Nick Kalivas . Important information Correlation is the degree to which two investments have historically moved in relation to each other. Tracking error measures the divergence between price behavior of a portfolio and the price behavior of a benchmark. Volatility measures the standard deviation from a mean of historical prices of a security or portfolio over time. The S&P 500® Low Volatility Index consists of the 100 stocks from the S&P 500® Index with the lowest realized volatility over the past 12 months. An investment cannot be made into an index. Typically, security classifications used in calculating allocation tables are as of the last trading day of the previous month. There are risks involved with investing in ETFs, including possible loss of money. Shares are not actively managed and are subject to risks similar to those of stocks, including those regarding short selling and margin maintenance requirements. Ordinary brokerage commissions apply. The Fund’s return may not match the return of the Underlying Index. The Fund is subject to certain other risks. Please see the current prospectus for more information regarding the risk associated with an investment in the Fund. Investments focused in a particular industry or sector, such as the industrials sector are subject to greater risk, and are more greatly impacted by market volatility, than more diversified investments. The Fund is non-diversified and may experience greater volatility than a more diversified investment. There is no assurance that the Fund will provide low volatility. The Global Industry Classification Standard was developed by and is the exclusive property and a service mark of MSCI, Inc. and Standard & Poor’s. S&P® is a registered trademark of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC (S&P) and Dow Jones® is a registered trademark of Dow Jones Trademark Holdings LLC (Dow Jones). These trademarks have been licensed for use by S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC. S&P® and Standard & Poor’s® are trademarks of S&P and Dow Jones® is a trademark of Dow Jones. These trademarks have been sublicensed for certain purposes by Invesco PowerShares Capital Management LLC (Invesco PowerShares). The Index is a product of S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC and/or its affiliates and has been licensed for use by Invesco PowerShares. The Fund is not sponsored, endorsed, sold or promoted by S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC, Dow Jones, S&P or their respective affiliates and neither S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC, Dow Jones, S&P or their respective affiliates make any representation regarding the advisability of investing in such product(s). Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. Business relationship disclosure: This article was posted on the Invesco PowerShares’ blog by an Invesco PowerShares’ employee on April 21, 2016: http://www.blog.invesco.us.com/measuring-performance-vs-benchmark-low-volatility-factor