Tag Archives: portfolio

IYR: This REIT ETF Has Some Great Holdings

Summary The portfolio construction of IYR is easy to admire. They took the risk of making the second heaviest weighting an equity REIT with extreme levels of operational leverage. They even incorporate a very small weighting to mREITs which further diversifies the portfolio. A heavy allocation to REITs makes more sense for investors that are weak on bond positions. 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. One of the funds that I’m considering is the iShares U.S. Real Estate ETF (NYSEARCA: IYR ). 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. Expense Ratio The expense ratio on IYR is .43%. Compared to other domestic equity funds like the Vanguard REIT Index ETF (NYSEARCA: VNQ ) or the Schwab U.S. REIT ETF (NYSEARCA: SCHH ), that is painfully high. VNQ charges .12% and SCHH charges .07%. Because I love diversification at low costs, I’m holding both VNQ and SCHH in my personal portfolio. Largest Holdings (click to enlarge) A large position to Simon Property Group (NYSE: SPG ) is a fairly normal starting point for most REIT ETFs. The very interesting thing about this portfolio is that they are using American Tower REIT Corp (NYSE: AMT ) as the second holding. For investors that are not familiar with AMT, they are a global telecommunications REIT. When you place a call from your cell phone, you may be using the services AMT provides as they contract with cellular companies to lease usage of their cell phone towers. The REIT has a very weak dividend yield and from most pricing metrics it looks absurdly expensive. The reason investors have kept shares of AMT so expensive is because their structure incorporates an enormous amount of operating leverage. When they go from having one client to two clients for a cell phone tower the variable costs are extremely low while the revenue scales up substantially. This is an interesting play because most holders of a REIT index would be looking to use the position to grab some dividends and AMT has fairly weak dividends. On the other hand, AMT is one of three major companies in their very small sector and there is the potential for excellent returns. This is a play with high risk and high potential returns. The best way to make those kinds of high risk plays is within the context of a diversified portfolio, so it makes sense that it would get a significant allocation within an ETF. Simply put, this strategy makes more sense from a diversification perspective than it does when we are considering why the investor might initially choose to buy a REIT ETF. Sector Exposure This breakdown of the sector exposure reinforces what I was seeing in the initial holdings chart. The heavy position in specialized REITs suggests a goal of using the ETF structure to create a portfolio that is substantially less volatile than the underlying holdings. Overall, I like the strategy in the portfolio construction. While I’d like to see more breakdowns on the “specialized” sector, I have to admit that I really admire seeing the ETF work to incorporate other types of holdings such as mREITs. That sector is highly complex and I spend a great deal of my time explaining it to investors. If investors get their exposure through a very small allocation within a REIT ETF, that would be a solid way to prevent the common investor mistakes of buying high and selling low which seems to be extremely common in the mREIT sector. Building the Portfolio The sample portfolio I ran for this assessment is one that came out feeling a bit awkward. I’ve had some requests to include biotechnology ETFs and I decided it would be wise to also include a the related field of health care for a comparison. Since I wanted to create quite a bit of diversification, I put in 9 ETFs plus the S&P 500. The resulting portfolio is one that I think turned out to be too risky for most investors and certainly too risky for older investors. Despite that weakness, I opted to go with highlighting these ETFs in this manner because I think it is useful to show investors what it looks like when the allocations result in a suboptimal allocation. The weightings for each ETF in the portfolio are a simple 10% which results in 20% of the portfolio going to the combined Health Care and Biotechnology sectors. Outside of that we have one spot each for REITs, high yield bonds, TIPS, emerging market consumer staples, domestic consumer staples, foreign large capitalization firms, and long term bonds. The first thing I want to point out about these allocations are that for any older investor, running only 30% in bonds with 10% of that being high yield bonds is putting yourself in a fairly dangerous position. I will be highlighting the individual ETFs, but I would not endorse this portfolio as a whole. The portfolio assumes frequent rebalancing which would be a problem for short term trading outside of tax advantaged accounts unless the investor was going to rebalance by adding to their positions on a regular basis and allocating the majority of the capital towards whichever portions of the portfolio had been underperforming recently. Because a substantial portion of the yield from this portfolio comes from REITs and interest, I would favor this portfolio as a tax exempt strategy even if the investor was frequently rebalancing by adding new capital. The portfolio allocations can be seen below along with the dividend yields from each investment. Name Ticker Portfolio Weight Yield SPDR S&P 500 Trust ETF SPY 10.00% 2.11% Health Care Select Sect SPDR ETF XLV 10.00% 1.40% SPDR Biotech ETF XBI 10.00% 1.54% iShares U.S. Real Estate ETF IYR 10.00% 3.83% PowerShares Fundamental High Yield Corporate Bond Portfolio ETF PHB 10.00% 4.51% FlexShares iBoxx 3-Year Target Duration TIPS Index ETF TDTT 10.00% 0.16% EGShares Emerging Markets Consumer ETF ECON 10.00% 1.34% Fidelity MSCI Consumer Staples Index ETF FSTA 10.00% 2.99% iShares MSCI EAFE ETF EFA 10.00% 2.89% Vanguard Long-Term Bond ETF BLV 10.00% 4.02% Portfolio 100.00% 2.48% The next chart shows the annualized volatility and beta of the portfolio since October of 2013. (click to enlarge) Risk Contribution The risk contribution category demonstrates the amount of the portfolio’s volatility that can be attributed to that position. You can see immediately since this is a simple “equal weight” portfolio that XBI is by far the most risky ETF from the perspective of what it does to the portfolio’s volatility. You can also see that BLV has a negative total risk impact on the portfolio. When you see negative risk contributions in this kind of assessment it generally means that there will be significantly negative correlations with other asset classes in the portfolio. The position in TDTT is also unique for having a risk contribution of almost nothing. Unfortunately, it also provides a weak yield and weak return with little opportunity for that to change unless yields on TIPS improve substantially. If that happened, it would create a significant loss before the position would start generating meaningful levels of income. A quick rundown of the portfolio I put together the following chart that really simplifies the role of each investment: Name Ticker Role in Portfolio SPDR S&P 500 Trust ETF SPY Core of Portfolio Health Care Select Sect SPDR ETF XLV Hedge Risk of Higher Costs SPDR Biotech ETF XBI Increase Expected Return iShares U.S. Real Estate ETF IYR Diversify Domestic Risk PowerShares Fundamental High Yield Corporate Bond Portfolio ETF PHB Strong Yields on Bond Investments FlexShares iBoxx 3-Year Target Duration TIPS Index ETF TDTT Very Low Volatility EGShares Emerging Markets Consumer ETF ECON Enhance Foreign Exposure Fidelity MSCI Consumer Staples Index ETF FSTA Reduce Portfolio Risk iShares MSCI EAFE ETF EFA Enhance Foreign Exposure Vanguard Long-Term Bond ETF BLV Negative Correlation, Strong Yield Correlation The chart below shows the correlation of each ETF with each other ETF in the portfolio. Blue boxes indicate positive correlations and tan box indicate negative correlations. Generally speaking lower levels of correlation are highly desirable and high levels of correlation substantially reduce the benefits from diversification. (click to enlarge) Conclusion IYR has a great portfolio construction methodology for investors that want some diversified exposure to equity REITs. The dividend yield of 3.83% isn’t mind blowing, but it is higher than the yield on SCHH. Of course, investments in mREITs should help strengthen the dividend yield to make up for REITs like AMT that are priced based on expected future revenue growth combined with exceptional operational leverage. The only thing I really dislike in this ETF is that the expense ratio is just too high. I can’t justify paying that kind of expense ratio for a REIT ETF. If an investor is willing to put up with the huge expense ratio, they should take notice that the fund has a positive correlation with the long term bond portfolio in BLV. That can be difficult because investors would like to be able to use the negative correlations to hammer the portfolio volatility lower. On the other hand, the moderate correlation with the S&P 500 makes it a reasonable option for investors that intend to be running a portfolio that is very heavy on equities. I fall under that category. I run extremely heavy on equities and use a significantly higher allocation to equity REITs than I would if I were running a strong bond allocation.

FFTWX: Want To Retire In 2025? Build A More Efficient Portfolio

Summary FFTWX offers investors a high expense ratio to go with a needlessly complex portfolio. By incorporating an enormous volume of other mutual funds the target date fund incorporates a higher expense ratio. If the fund needs exposure to the total U.S. market, they can ditch the complicated combination of funds and just use FSTVX. Lately I have been doing some research on target date retirement funds. Despite the concept of a target date retirement fund being fairly simple, the investment options appear to vary quite dramatically in quality. Some of the funds have dramatically more complex holdings consisting with a high volume of various funds while others use only a few funds and yet achieve excellent diversification. My goal is help investors recognize which funds are the most useful tools for planning for retirement. In this article I’m focusing on the Fidelity Freedom® 2025 Fund (MUTF: FFTWX ). What do funds like FFTWX do? They establish a portfolio based on a hypothetical start to retirement period. The portfolios are generally going to be designed under Modern Portfolio Theory so the goal is to maximize the expected return relative to the amount of risk the portfolio takes on. As investors are approaching retirement it is assumed that their risk tolerance will be decreasing and thus the holdings of the fund should become more conservative over time. That won’t be the case for every investor, but it is a reasonable starting place for creating a retirement option when each investor cannot be surveyed about their own unique risk tolerances. Therefore, the holdings of FFTWX should be more aggressive now than they would be 3 years from now, but at all points we would expect the fund to be more conservative than a fund designed for investors that are expected to retire 5 years later. What Must Investors Know? The most important things to know about the funds are the expenses and either the individual holdings or the volatility of the portfolio as a whole. Regardless of the planned retirement date, high expense ratios are a problem. Depending on the individual, they may wish to modify their portfolio to be more or less aggressive than the holdings of FFTWX. Expense Ratio The expense ratio of Fidelity Freedom® 2025 is .70%. That expense ratio is simply too high. Investors using a target date fund need to keep an eye on those expenses. It is possible to create a very efficient portfolio using only a few funds. Ideally the funds selected for building the portfolio would be selected for offering excellent diversified exposure at very low expense ratios. At the most simplistic level, an investor is looking for domestic equity, international equity, domestic bonds, and international bonds. If any of those had to be left out, the international bond allocation is the least important. In my opinion, there is no need to use both growth and value indexes. There is no need to individually use large, medium, and small-cap allocations. For instance, the Fidelity Spartan® Total Market Index Fund (MUTF: FSTVX ) has a net expense ratio of .05% and offers exposure to the vast majority of the U.S. market. If you were building a target date fund from Fidelity funds, you could simply use FSTVX and eliminate all other domestic equity funds. This method would provide investors with a low expense ratio on the underlying domestic equity position and excellent diversification. That is precisely why I am including FSTVX as a holding in my portfolio. The Vanguard Target Retirement 2025 fund has an expense ratio of .17%. Just so investors have a healthy comparison of how much it costs to run a very efficient target retirement fund, the Vanguard expense ratio gives a pretty clear indication. Holdings / Composition The following chart demonstrates the holdings of Fidelity Freedom® 2025: If you were making a target date fund, how many allocations would you need? Hopefully it wouldn’t be that many. Note that the holdings chart above simply showed the equity funds. There is another long list of funds for bond exposures. There is simply no need for a portfolio to be this complex. Volatility An investor may choose to use FFTWX in an employer sponsored account (if their employer has it on the approved list) while creating their own portfolio in separate accounts. Since I can’t predict what investors will choose to combine with the fund, I analyze it as being an entire portfolio. (click to enlarge) When we look at the volatility on FFTWX, it is dramatically lower than the volatility on the SPDR S&P 500 Trust ETF ( SPY). That shouldn’t be surprising since the portfolio has some large bond positions. Over the last five years it has significantly underperformed SPY, but that should be expected given the much lower beta and volatility of the fund. Investors should expect this fund to retain dramatically more value in a bear market and to fall behind in a prolonged bull market. Even adjusted for the beta, the returns on this portfolio were pretty weak. They were slightly over half the rate achieved by SPY. For comparison, one way an investor can achieve precisely half of the returns on SPY with precisely half the volatility is to buy SPY with half of their portfolio and leave the rest sitting in the account. That would have resulted in slightly lower returns, but it would also have resulted in a dramatically reduced max drawdown. For a fund designed for people that are retiring only a decade from now, having had a max drawdown that was almost as large as if the entire portfolio had been invested in SPY is a pretty poor performance. Opinions The first change I would want to make here is to see a lower expense ratio and a dramatically simplified portfolio of holdings. There is no need for a large complicated portfolio. To drive annualized volatility down while using Fidelity funds, I would favor using the Spartan ® Long-Term Treasury Bond Index Fund (MUTF: FLBAX ). The fund has a very high weighted average maturity (around 25 years), over 99% of the portfolio is in treasury securities (low credit risk), and an expense ratio of only .1%. That is a good solid mutual fund and using it in a target date portfolio fund with regular rebalancing allows investors to automatically take advantage of the negative correlation that long term treasuries have with the domestic equity market. Comparison Portfolio I used Invest Spy to put together a portfolio from Fidelity funds that I believe is dramatically superior to FFTWX. That portfolio is demonstrated below: (click to enlarge) This portfolio simply combines their total domestic market index (expense ratio .05%) with their long term treasury ETF (expense ratio .1%). The resulting expense ratio of the two underlying funds at a 50/50 weighting should be about .075%. This hypothetical portfolio had a max drawdown of only 7.3% and an annualized volatility of 7.2%, which is dramatically lower than the 10.4% reported for FFTWX. Of course, investors should not rely on historical results as predicting future results. The example is simply to demonstrate that a portfolio of domestic equities and long term treasuries has been capable of maintaining fairly low portfolio volatility due to the historical negative correlation of the two asset classes. Conclusion When an investor takes on an expense ratio that is even .3% higher and pays that ratio for 20 years, they are looking at losing 6% of the value of the portfolio without accounting for compounding. If investors account for the benefits of compounding and assume annual returns are positive, the potential value lost is even greater than 6%. FFTWX is an expensive option for investors looking for a simple “set it and forget it” retirement plan from their employer sponsored retirement accounts. The volatility of the fund is not a problem and the total exposures are not unreasonable. The problem comes down to two issues. One is that the fund has needlessly complicated the portfolio holdings and the other is that the expense ratio is simply too high when compared to similar products offered by competitors. There are some great funds offered by Fidelity and I have positions in a few of them. Unfortunately, this fund just falls short of the mark.

Building A Bulletproof Portfolio Of A+ Growth Stocks

Summary An investor can “bullet-proof” his portfolio while maximizing his expected return using the hedged portfolio method. When creating a hedged portfolio, you can start from scratch or start with a list of stock picks. We explore the second method here. The stock picks we start with are ones rated “A+” by S&P Capital IQ for growth and stability of earnings and dividends. We provide a sample hedged portfolio of “A+” stocks designed for an investor unwilling to risk a drawdown of more than 14%. Growth Investing versus Value Investing The idea of buying a stock for less than its ” intrinsic value ” has an innate appeal to value investors, but, as leading buy-and-hold investing blogger Eddy Efenbein suggested in a recent quip, not everyone is cut out for it: Give a man a value stock and he’s invested for a day, but teach a man value investing and he’ll be in anxiety-ridden mess for life. – Eddy Elfenbein (@EddyElfenbein) September 24, 2015 Unlike bargain-shopping value investors, growth investors are willing to pay more for a stock, in return for the prospect of higher future earnings growth. But that doesn’t necessarily eliminate anxiety. As with any style of stock investing, with growth investing, you face two kinds of risks: idiosyncratic risk , the risk of something bad happening to one of the companies you own, and market risk , the risk of your investments suffering due to a decline of the market as a whole. Two Ways of Limiting Stock-Specific Risk One way to limit stock-specific risk is via hedging; another way is via diversification. In a previous article (“How to Limit Your Market Risk”), we discussed ways to limit market risk for a diversified portfolio. In this post, we’ll look at how to “bulletproof” a concentrated portfolio of growth stocks using the hedged portfolio method . In that method, you limit both stock-specific and market risk via hedging. First, we’ll need a list of growth stocks to start with. For that, we’ll use a screen devised by the research firm S&P Capital IQ . A+ Stocks with High Projected Growth The goal of this screen is to find stocks likely to extend their superior historical earnings and dividend growth records. It uses two criteria: Forward annual earnings growth estimates of 12% or better over the next 3-5 years. An S&P Capital IQ Earnings and Dividend Rank of A+, which means a 10-year history of high growth and stability of earnings and dividends. On Wednesday, Fidelity’s screener identified seven stocks meeting those S&P Capital IQ criteria: Advance Auto Parts (NYSE: AAP ) CVS Health (NYSE: CVS ) Echolab (NYSE: ECL ) Ross Stores (NASDAQ: ROST ) Tupperware Brands (NYSE: TUP ) UnitedHealth Group (NYSE: UNH ) Walt Disney Co. (NYSE: DIS ) We’ll use those stocks as a starting point to construct a “bulletproof”, or hedged portfolio for an investor who is unwilling to risk a drawdown of more than 14%, and has $500,000 that he wants to invest. First, though, let’s address the issue of risk tolerance, and how it affects potential return. Risk Tolerance and Potential Return All else equal, with a hedged portfolio, the greater an investor’s risk tolerance — the greater the maximum drawdown he is willing to risk (his “threshold”, in our terminology) – the higher his potential return will be. So, we should expect that an investor who is willing to risk a 24% decline will have a chance at higher potential returns than one who is only willing to risk a 14% drawdown. Constructing A Hedged Portfolio We’ll outline the process here briefly, and then explain how you can implement it yourself. Finally, we’ll present an example of a hedged portfolio that was constructed this way with an automated tool. The process, in broad strokes, is this: Find securities with high potential returns (we define potential return as a high-end, bullish estimate of how the security will perform). Find securities that are relatively inexpensive to hedge. Buy a handful of securities that score well on the first two criteria; in other words, buy a handful of securities with high potential returns net of their hedging costs (or, ones with high net potential returns). Hedge them. The potential benefits of this approach are twofold: If you are successful at the first step (finding securities with high potential returns), and you hold a concentrated portfolio of them, your portfolios should generate decent returns over time. If you are hedged, and your return estimates are completely wrong, on occasion — or the market moves against you — your downside will be strictly limited. How to Implement This Approach Finding promising stocks In this case, we’re going to start with the stocks generated by the A+ high growth screen. To quantify potential returns for these stocks, you can, for example, use analysts’ price targets for them and then convert these to percentage returns from current prices. In general, though, you’ll need to use the same time frame for each of your potential return calculations to facilitate comparisons of potential returns, hedging costs, and net potential returns. Our method starts with calculations of six-month potential returns. Finding inexpensive ways to hedge these securities Whatever hedging method you use, for this example, you’d want to make sure that each security is hedged against a greater-than-14% decline over the time frame covered by your potential return calculations (our method attempts to find optimal static hedges using collars as well as protective puts going out approximately six months). And you’ll need to calculate your cost of hedging as a percentage of position value. Selecting the securities with highest net potential returns In order to determine which securities these are, out of the list above, you may need to first adjust your potential return calculations by the time frame of your hedges. For example, although our method initially calculates six-month potential returns and aims to find hedges with six months to expiration, in some cases the closest hedge expiration may be five months out. In those cases, we will adjust our potential return calculation down accordingly, because we expect an investor will exit the position shortly before the hedge expires (in general, our method and calculations are based on the assumption that an investor will hold his shares for six months, until shortly before their hedges expire or until they are called away, whichever comes first). Next, you’ll need to subtract the hedging costs you calculated in the previous step from the potential returns you calculated for each position, and exclude any security that has a negative potential return net of hedging costs. Fine-tuning portfolio construction You’ll want to stick with round lots (numbers of shares divisible by 100) to minimize hedging costs, so if you’re going to include a handful of securities from the sort in the previous step and you have a relatively small portfolio, you’ll need to take into account the share prices of the securities. Another fine-tuning step is to minimize cash that’s left over after you make your initial allocation to round lots of securities and their respective hedges. Because each security is hedged, you won’t need a large cash position to reduce risk. And since returns on cash are so low now, by minimizing cash you can potentially boost returns. In this step, our method searches for what we call a “cash substitute”: that’s a security collared with a tight cap (1% or the current yield on a leading money market fund, whichever is higher) in an attempt to capture a better-than-cash return while keeping the investor’s downside limited according to his specifications. You could use a similar approach, or you could simply allocate left over cash to one of the securities you selected in the previous step. Calculating Expected Returns While net potential returns are bullish estimates of how well securities will perform, net of their hedging costs, expected returns, in our terminology, are the more likely returns net of hedging costs. In a series of 25,412 backtests over an 11-year time period, we determined two things about our method of calculating potential returns: it generates alpha, and it overstates actual returns. The average actual return over the next six months in those 25,412 tests was 0.3x the average potential return calculated ahead of time. So, we use that empirically derived relationship to calculate our expected returns. An Automated Approach Here we’ll show an example of creating a hedged portfolio starting with S&P Capital IQ’s A+ growth stocks using the general process described above, facilitated by the automated hedged portfolio construction tool at Portfolio Armor . In the first step, we enter the ticker symbols in the “Tickers” field, the dollar amount of our investor’s portfolio (500000), and in the third field, the maximum decline he’s willing to risk in percentage terms (14). In the second step, we are given the option of entering our own return estimates for each of these securities. Instead, in this case, we’ll let the site supply its own potential returns. A couple minutes after clicking the “Create” button, we were presented with the hedged portfolio below. The data here is as of Wednesday’s close. Why These Particular Securities? The site included all of the entered securities for which it calculated a positive potential return, net of hedging costs. In this case, that turned out to be all of them except TUP. In its fine-tuning step, Portfolio Armor added Facebook (NASDAQ: FB ) as a cash substitute. Let’s turn our attention now to the portfolio level summary. Worst-Case Scenario The “Max Drawdown” column in the portfolio level summary shows the worst-case scenario for this hedged portfolio. If every underlying security in it went to zero before their hedges expired, the portfolio would decline 13.8%. Negative Hedging Cost Note that, in this case, the total hedging cost for the portfolio was negative, -1.98%, meaning the investor would receive more income in total from selling the call legs of the collars on his positions than he spent buying the puts. Best-Case Scenario At the portfolio level, the net potential return is 5.76% over the next six months. This represents the best-case scenario, if each underlying security in the portfolio meets or exceeds its potential return. A More Likely Scenario The portfolio level expected return of 2.02% represents a conservative estimate, based on the historical relationship between our calculated potential returns and backtested actual returns. How to Get a Higher Expected Return The site calculates potential returns using an analysis of price history and options sentiment, and, according to those metrics, didn’t consider the stocks we entered “A+”. If you disagree with the site’s potential returns for these stocks, you can enter your own estimates for them. Alternatively, you could decide not to enter any ticker symbols, and let the site pick its own securities. If you had done that on Wednesday using the same dollar amount ($500,000) and decline threshold (14%), the hedged portfolio generated would have had a net potential return (best case scenario) of 16%, and an expected return (more likely scenario) of 4.8%. Each Security Is Hedged Note that each of the above securities is hedged. Facebook, the cash substitute, is hedged with an optimal collar with its cap set at 1%, and the remaining securities are hedged with optimal collars with their caps set at each underlying security’s potential return. Here is a closer look at the hedge for UnitedHealth: UnitedHealth is capped here at 4.62%, because that’s the potential return Portfolio Armor calculated for it over the next several months. As you can at the bottom of the image above, the cost of the put protection in this collar is $1,600, or 2.6% of position value. But if you look at the image below, you’ll see the income generated from selling the calls is $2,700, or 4.38% of position value. So, the net cost of this optimal collar is negative.[i] Possibly More Protection Than Promised In some cases, hedges such as the ones in the portfolio above can provide more protection than promised. For an example of that, see this instablog post on hedging the iPath S&P 500 VIX ST Futures ETN (NYSEARCA: VXX ). [i]To be conservative, this optimal collar shows the puts being purchased at their ask price, and the calls being sold at their bid price. In practice, an investor can often buy the puts for less (i.e., at some point between the bid and ask prices) and sell the calls for more (again, at some point between the bid and ask). So the actual cost of opening this collar would have likely been less (i.e., an investor would have likely collected more than $1,100 when opening this hedge).