Tag Archives: russell

Is It Time To Short Small-Cap Stocks?

By DailyAlts Staff Size matters to factor-based investors, as small-cap stocks have historically outperformed their large-cap counterparts. But throughout the equity market’s history, there have been periods of dramatic small-cap underperformance, and David Schulz, president of Convergence Investment Partners, thinks we may be headed into such a period. He and his team at Convergence are rare among small-cap managers in employing an active shortin g strategy as both a source of alpha and a way to reduce risk. The Convergence Opportunities Fund (MUTF: CIPOX ) reflects the views of Mr. Schulz and his team. The fund, which debuted in November 2013 and ranked in the top 9% of funds in its category in its first calendar year, lost 5.4% in the first nine months of 2015, but still ranked in the top quartile of its peers. Going forward, the fund should outperform if small caps underperform, providing a unique way for investors to diversify their portfolio risks. Why are Mr. Schulz and Convergence bearish on small caps? The firm sent out an alert late last month citing a variety of reasons pertaining to valuation: Roughly 27% of stocks in the small-cap Russell 2000 index have negative P/E ratios (i.e., they’re unprofitable), while this is true of only 8% of large- and mid-caps in the Russell 1000; About 9% of Russell 2000 stocks have a P/E ratio of 50 or higher, while less than 6% of Russell 1000 stocks have such high earnings multiples; and In total, 36% of stocks in the Russell 2000 have P/E ratios that are either negative or over 50 – and 10 stocks in the index have P/Es that are over 1000! Furthermore, increased volatility in the equity markets has been bearish for small caps, since conditions have led investors to “sharpen their focus on valuations,” in Convergence’s words. In the brutal month of August, the 25 small-cap stocks with the highest P/E ratios returned -8.83%, while the 25 stocks with the lowest P/Es returned -0.28%. Since there are many more small caps with high P/Es than with low valuations, this trend is bearish for small caps in general, but Convergence’s Opportunities Fund applies a long/short approach to capture the upside exposure to the best-valued small-cap stocks. The firm says so-called “hope stocks” are on its list of shorts – these are companies with “weak balance sheets; low or decelerating cash flow, earnings, and sales; and high expectations.” Convergence believes an active short portfolio can complement an active long portfolio, especially during particularly tumultuous times. The short portfolio can “cushion the fall” when the market is under pressure and “add materially to the overall return of the portfolio over time.” Ultimately, stocks are differentiated by their fundamentals, and with interest rates expected to rise soon, the most fundamentally sound companies should outperform those with weaker balance sheets and decelerating earnings. The Convergence Opportunities Fund seeks to capitalize by applying a flexible long/short approach to U.S. small-caps. Share this article with a colleague

Smead Capital Q3 Shareholder Letter

Summary David Dreman’s Red Room and Green Room provides a useful framework for thinking about investments. We argue that a new “Beige” room representing passive investments should be added to the construct. We conclude that the Green Room still offers the best approach for the long-duration investors. The inevitability of market fluctuations caught up with the U.S. stock market and the Smead Value Fund (MUTF: SMVLX ) in the third quarter of 2015. The fund fell 5.93%, while the S&P 500 Index fell 6.44% and the Russell 1000 Value Index fell 8.39%. We were pleased with how our portfolio held up in the decline, but are realistic with our investors about the likelihood that there are periods when our fund will either decline in value and/or underperform the indexes we measure ourselves against. We used the declining prices in the quarter to reduce the number of companies we own and to raise the quality and cheapness of our holdings. Our stocks that contributed the most alpha in the quarter were H&R Block (NYSE: HRB ), NVR (NYSE: NVR ) and Chubb (NYSE: CB ). H&R Block announced a massive stock-buyback totaling 35% of outstanding shares and a Dutch-auction tender offer for $1.5 billion of its shares. NVR has continued to have the wind behind them as home building recovers from a population-adjusted depression in household formation and home buying from 2007-12. Chubb was taken over by Ace LTD at a sizable premium and was sold during the quarter. Among the worst drags on performance was Tegna (NYSE: TGNA ), which fell sharply after splitting from Gannett. Tegna’s ownership of network-affiliated TV stations got caught in cord-cutting and advertising revenue competition fears. We find this ironic. As the value of cellular spectrum increases and a blowout political advertising season looms in 2016, we get very excited about their future. Even today, 55% of adults in America use local TV news as their prime form of news. PayPal (NASDAQ: PYPL ) suffered from its popularity prior to the split with eBay (NASDAQ: EBAY ). Many major companies covet their 75% share of the secure online payments market and it has corrected along with other stocks with above-average P/E ratios. Navient (NASDAQ: NAVI ) disappointed investors during the quarter. They have experienced unusual loan losses in their portfolio and we sold the stock during the quarter. The Red, Green, and Beige Room One of the great investing books of the last 40 years was David Dreman’s, Contrarian Investment Strategy . He started it by telling of a hypothetical gaming casino with two separate, but adjoining, rooms: the red room and the green room. The red room was packed with people and excitement and almost every day someone hit a huge jackpot setting the building on fire with electricity. Every seat was packed, others waited their turn to play and the anticipation was palpable. Yet most of the players left the casino each night without their money, because the odds were stacked heavily in the house’s favor. The green room was relatively quiet and included many empty seats. Players sat patiently and most of them had amassed large chip stacks. Virtually nobody hit it big each day, but through patience and odds stacked heavily in their favor, most the participants in the green room created wealth. In the last 20 years, we think a new room should be added to Dreman’s imaginary casino. We call it the “beige” room. This room is filled with investors who had the natural reaction to bad experiences in the red room, but lacked the patience to succeed in the green room. In this room, you will find participants in passive indexes. Additionally, we think stock market difficulties since 2000 triggered former green room participants to lose their patience, thus contributing to the popularity of being average. Dreman was trying to explain the difference between investing in common stocks based on excitement about future prospects versus buying stocks based on value or intrinsic value. This has been over-simplified by using monikers such as growth stock and value stock. For the sake of our discussion, let’s say that a value stock is one priced below the average stock and a growth stock is one priced above the average. The most common averages used are the price-to-earnings ratio (P/E) and the price-to-book ratio (P/B). Every academic study we’ve seen shows that over one, three, five and seven-year time periods, the cheapest stocks outperform the average and most expensive stocks. The most famous of these studies are the ones in Dreman’s book (see below), Fama and French’s P/B study and Francis Nicholson’s study from 1937-1962. Dreman used P/E quintiles, while Fama and French used P/B ratios and both studies rebalanced at the end of each year. They argued that excess return could be had by simply starting the year with the cheapest stocks in the S&P 500 Index and replacing the ones which found favor during the year with the latest ones to find the doghouse. These studies led to the “Dog’s of the Dow” strategy, where an investor purchases the 10 cheapest stocks in the index based on dividend yield (another measurement of cheapness). We found Nicholson’s study (see below) even more fascinating because his portfolio was static. It showed that cheap stocks at the beginning not only outperform in the next 12 months, but that their outperformance continues on for seven years. We like to say that cheap stocks are the gifts which keep on giving. Warren Buffett, the number one disciple of the father of value investing, Benjamin Graham, started out being a green room common stock investor and continues to do so in the private equity realm as well. In the 1960s, he ran into his investing partner, Charlie Munger. Mr. Munger advocated for a qualitative addition to these quantitative strategies. He and Buffett believe that the long duration investor, with great patience, can benefit from owning very high quality businesses purchased at a time of distress. They believe that the primary responsibility of the wise long duration investor is to wait until a splendid business gets in the doghouse due to a bear market in stocks or a temporary corporate stumble. Then they pounce on that opportunity by “backing up the truck” and loading up on shares. Munger’s theory was proven correct in a seminal study done by Ben Inker at Grantham, Mayo and Van Otterloo (see below). His study showed that certain qualitative characteristics like low leverage, high and sustainable profitability, low earnings volatility and low volatility in stock trading have proven to add alpha over long durations. We at Smead Capital Management start our research by leaning toward Dreman’s study, because “valuation matters dearly.” We love Nicholson’s study because the seven-year holding period shows that you can own businesses for a long time and keep your portfolio turnover down. Turnover is a huge annual tax on large-cap equity portfolios and the cost averages 81 basis points or 0.81% annually among large-cap U.S. equity funds. However, we at Smead Capital are risk averse and recognize that human nature gets in the way of holding businesses for a long time, especially in the low-quality arena. This is where Munger and Inker, with their focus on high-quality, come into play and how we seek to reduce portfolio risk proactively. In late 2008, after getting clobbered all year, we received many calls to the effect of “Bill, we know you want to own stocks for a long time and we believe in what you are doing. But shouldn’t we get out of the way of this decline in case we have a total economic meltdown like in the 1930s?” Our answer was simple. The only “safe” alternative was investing in Treasury bills/bonds or government-insured certificates of deposit. We pointed out that the merit of those “safe” investments was the backing of the U.S. government. Our government’s guarantee is no better than its ability to collect income taxes. Those taxes are paid by the largest companies in the U.S. and their employees. Therefore, the safety of Certificates of Deposits and T-bonds came from the safety provided by the qualitative characteristics of the stocks in our portfolio. Selling quality stocks at a time of distress was an especially bad idea, in our opinion. What does the red room look like today? It is filled with investors seeking above-average returns by paying extremely high P/E and P/B ratios for companies with perceived “bright” futures in an attempt to hit the jackpot. Red room regulars are excited about social media, internet-based information/advertising, online shopping, fast food, cloud computing and the “sharing” economy. It is enough to make you want to open a bureau in Silicon Valley. What is going on in the beige room lately? The beige room (index investing) has a tendency to work great in an uninterrupted bull market like the one we enjoyed from March of 2009 to the peak in the summer of 2015. There is historical evidence of the index becoming overloaded with shares of the previous era’s most successful companies, ala tech stocks in 1999. In effect, valuation works against the index when it has been particularly effective in the prior five to ten years. The S&P 500 Index has enjoyed the tailwinds of its overweight position in multinational companies, who drafted on emerging market growth in staple products, heavy industrial infrastructure investments in China and technology purchases everywhere. Since we are of the opinion that the U.S. economy will do better in the next ten years as compared to the last ten years, we contend that the index is at a disadvantage because nearly half of its revenue comes from abroad. Lastly, there are some pretty persuasive arguments which surround the idea that index returns will be in the 6% area going forward. These theories take into account dividends that are lower than historical averages and interest rate increases over time which would reduce historically high profit margins. Our opinion is that the beige room is appropriate for those who are incapable of investing in the green room or unable to figure out whom is. Owning U.S. large-cap equity for a long time is preferable to most other liquid investments and you can get average performance from an attractive asset class in the beige room. Where are folks congregating in the green room? They are rummaging around in financial service companies like banks and insurance, which have low P/E and P/B ratios. The death of traditional media and advertising is a foregone investor conclusion and the lowest P/E and P/B ratios lists are sprinkled with TV content and broadcasting companies, network-affiliate station owners and newspaper/magazine publishers. We are always on the lookout for companies on the cheapest list which meet our eight criteria for stock selection because valuation matters dearly, we want to own companies for a long time and to do that we must own very high quality companies. Thank you for your ongoing confidence in our methodology. The information contained herein represents the opinion of Smead Capital Management and is not intended to be a forecast of future events, a guarantee of future results, nor investment advice. The Smead Value Fund’s investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses must be considered carefully before investing. The statutory and summary prospectuses contain this and other important information about the investment company, and it may be obtained by calling 877-807-4122, or visiting smeadfunds.com . Read it carefully before investing. Mutual fund investing involves risk. Principal loss is possible. As of 09/30/2015 the fund held, 6.02% of NVR Inc., 5.61% of Amgen Inc., 5.17% of Tegna Inc., 5.04% of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Class B, 5.01% of American Express Co., 4.81% of JPMorgan Chase & Co., 4.42% of Bank of America Corp., 4.34% of H&R Block Inc, 4.33% of Aflac Inc., and 4.29% of Wells Fargo & Co. Fund holdings are subject to change at any time and should not be considered recommendations to buy or sell any security. Current and future portfolio holdings are subject to risk. The S&P 500 Index is a market-value weighted index consisting of 500 stocks chosen for market size, liquidity, and industry group representation. The Russell 1000 Value Index is an index of approximately 1,000 of the largest companies in the U.S. equity markets; the Russell 1000 is a subset of the Russell 3000 Index. The Russell 1000 Value Index measures the performance of the large-cap value segment of the U.S. equity universe. It includes those Russell 1000 companies with lower price-to-book ratios and lower expected growth values. Price/Earnings (P/E) is the ratio of a firm’s closing stock price and its trailing 12 months’ earnings/ share. Price / Book (P/B) is the current price divided by the most recent book value per share. Alpha is the excess return of a fund relative to the return of its benchmark. Beta is a measure of the volatility, or systematic risk, of a security or a portfolio in comparison to the market as a whole. Beta is used in the capital asset pricing model (CAPM), a model that calculates the expected return of an asset based on its beta and expected market returns. A Dutch auction tender for public offer is a structure in which the price of the offering is set after taking in all bids and determining the highest price at which the total offering can be sold. In this type of auction, investors place a bid for the amount they are willing to buy in terms of quantity and price. Small- and Medium-capitalization companies tend to have limited liquidity and greater price volatility than large-capitalization companies. Active investing generally has higher management fees because of the manager’s increased level of involvement while passive investing generally has lower management and operating fees. Investing in both actively and passively managed funds involves risk, and principal loss is possible. Both actively and passively managed funds generally have daily liquidity. There are no guarantees regarding the performance of actively and passively managed funds. Actively managed mutual funds may have higher portfolio turnover than passively managed funds. Excessive turnover can limit returns and can incur capital gains. Frank Russell Company is the source and owner of the trademarks, service marks and copyrights related to the Russell Indexes. Russell ® is a trademark of Russell Investment Group. The Smead Value Fund is distributed by ALPS Distributors, Inc. ALPS Distributors, Inc. and Smead Capital Management are not affiliated.

Royce Micro Cap Trust: A Tough Year, But Sticking To What It Knows

RMT is a value-focused micro-cap CEF. A while back, I compared the fund to its open-ended sibling, RYOTX. Although it’s been a bad year for RMT, that’s not surprising and may actually open up a buying opportunity. The Royce family of open- and closed-end funds is managed with a bottom-up value approach. Historically, that’s been a great niche, but more recently, it’s been a performance drag. But if you are looking for a closed-end fund, or CEF, that has a value focus and invests in micro-cap stocks, I still think Royce Micro Cap Trust (NYSE: RMT ) should be on your short list. What does Royce do? The goal for every Royce fund is to find companies with strong balance sheets and the potential for above-average returns. Some of the attributes Royce looks at when examining a company include operating leverage, returns on capital, return on assets, operating dynamics, and the sustainability of its business model. Another key factor, however, makes it more difficult to find stocks to buy when the market has been heading higher for several years: Royce also wants market prices that are 30-50% below what it believes a company is worth. So it is, then, that RMT’s annualized trailing five-year net asset value, or NAV, return through August was roughly 12.8%, while the return of the Russell 2000 was a more robust 15.6% or so. By design, the Russell 2000 will have a blend of growth and value names. However, looking further back, the annualized trailing 15-year NAV return for RMT was 8.1% through August, compared to the Russell 2000’s gain of only 6.7%. (All number include reinvested distributions.) That should bring to mind the saying that the market is a voting machine over short periods, but a weighing machine over long periods. Which is exactly what RMT is all about, trying to find the stocks that have been voted “off the island” in the near term, but that still have long-term appeal. And sticking to that focus can lead the fund to underperform in bull markets. Did something just change? So far this year, it’s been no different. Year to date through August, RMT’s NAV is down 10.5% while the Russell 2000 is down only 3% or so. That’s not surprising, since, as noted, Royce sticks to its approach no matter what’s going on in the broader market. That’s exactly what a long-term investor in RMT and other Royce funds should want. But it can be hard to sit back and watch your fund underperform in the near term even though historical numbers suggest, though of course don’t guarantee, it will all turn out okay in the long term. Which helps explain why RMT’s market price declined around 14.5% through August, as investors got scared off by the laggard showing. In fact, the fund’s discount to its NAV currently sits around 15%, compared to a three-year average of around 12%. That’s a fairly deep discount for what is really a well-run fund, but shows pretty clearly that investors are worried about its performance numbers. And what about that market sell-off last month? It made things worse. At least on an absolute basis… which is worth looking at. RMT’s NAV fell 4.3% or so in August. But that marked a reversal from the trend, because the Russell 2000 fell 6.3% in the month. That’s only two percentage points, but it’s a big difference from what’s been happening recently. And once again, I’d attribute that to the fund’s value focus. Since it buys undervalued stocks, the steepening market downturn has had less of an impact. Indeed, the early-year performance of many of its holdings suggest that the portfolio had already felt the sting of the market shifting gears. In the final days of a bull market, investors tend to refocus around high-flyers, leaving other names behind. But eventually, those loved stocks also succumb when the market turns en masse. In fact, the most loved names on the upside often turn into the least loved on the downside. Value stocks, meanwhile, are usually always kind of unloved until their fundamentals shine through. But at the end of the day, RMT is trading at a wider discount than normal and has been doing better, at least on a relative basis, than the broader market as volatility has kicked up. Exactly what I’d expect from a value-focused micro-cap fund. Will it continue to hold up better? Hard to tell. But I know management will remain true to its investment focus. If we are entering a market downturn, that should serve investors well. The problem spots? So, stepping back from the last month or so of relative outperformance, what’s been going on at the fund? Looking back at the first six months of the year, lead manager Charles Royce noted that the fund’s consumer discretionary, healthcare and information technology holdings were laggards relative to the same sectors within its benchmark indexes. And that was pretty much all stock selection. For example, the fund has little exposure to biotechnology stocks, which have been on a tear in recent years. But, as Royce notes , “Most biotech companies, however, lack the fundamental attributes we seek in our holdings.” It’s the perfect example of the fund sticking to what it does, even if the market is favoring other investments. And while the next update won’t come out until after the end of the third quarter, I wouldn’t expect the theme here to change. In the end, it’s been a rough stretch for RMT. But if you have a long-term focus, don’t get too discouraged. Value investing goes in and out of favor over time, and the recent bull market, which has at least taken a breather if it hasn’t turned into a bear, has been tough for value investors like Royce. That doesn’t change the fact that RMT is a well-run fund. In fact, if you are in the market for a micro-cap value fund, now might even be a good time to start picking up some shares. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.