Tag Archives: seeking-alpha

Inside New Diversified Return U.S. Equity ETF By J.P. Morgan

The global economy is presently caught in a vicious cycle of volatility with the sole star U.S. (in the developed market pack) also finding itself trapped. Instead of leaning on policy tightening, the domestic economy is now backtracking on the issue. This was especially true given the slowing momentum in the labor market and muted inflation. In this backdrop, volatility has taken center stage. Still, several other economic indicators at home are sturdy enough for investors to bet on U.S. stocks. Plus, a dovish Fed eased tensions over the sudden cease or shrinkage in cheap money inflows. All in all, risky assets regained some lost ground but volatility prevailed. Probably keeping this in mind, issuers look to deploy quality factors as much as possible. After all, be it developed economies, emerging nations or commodities and currencies, shocks were felt everywhere. Thanks to this, J.P. Morgan’s new factor-based ETF targeted on the U.S. market – J.P. Morgan Diversified Return U.S. Equity (NYSEARCA: JPUS ) – deserves a detailing. JPUS in Focus The fund looks to track the performance of the Russell 1000 Diversified Factor Index and has exposure to domestic multi-cap stocks. The fund seeks to score high on basic factors like quality and momentum to mitigate risks and tack on capital appreciation. The 561-stock portfolio is equally weighted resulting in minimal company-specific concentration risk. No stock accounts for more than 0.65% of the basket at present. Xcel Energy Inc. (NYSE: XEL ), TECO Energy Inc. (NYSE: TE ) and Henry Schein Inc. (NASDAQ: HSIC ) are the top three holdings. Consumer discretionary (17%), health care (16%), utilities (13%), consumer staples (13%) and technology (12%) get double-digit exposure in the fund. Large caps rule the basket with about 60% focus followed by 35% of assets invested in the mid caps and 5% in the small caps. The fund charges 29 bps in fees. How Will it Fit in a Portfolio? Several academic researches indicated that the risk-adjusted returns from quality stocks outperform the broader market over long term. Thus, this ETF could be an intriguing pick for investors looking to invest in stocks that have high quality and are rich in momentum factors. This way the fund appears to stay afloat in a booming as well as in a volatile market. ETF Competition The craze for smart-beta or high-quality products is high of late especially given the heightened volatility in the market. Issuers are increasingly coming up with multi-factor ETFs, though the space is yet to be jam-packed. However, J.P. Morgan has been quite proactive with this technique and bet on the trend last year with the launch of a global equity ETF (NYSEARCA: JPGE ) which focuses on factors like value, size, momentum and low volatility. State Street is also ramping up its multi-factor lineup. Apart from these, a few products including PowerShares S&P 500 High Quality Portfolio (NYSEARCA: SPHQ ), MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF (NYSEARCA: QUAL ), MSCI USA Value Factor ETF (NYSEARCA: VLUE ) or Arrow QVM Equity Factor ETF (NYSEARCA: QVM ) could put pressure on this new J.P. Morgan ETF. There is also iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF (NYSEARCA: MTUM ) which is a notable momentum play. Despite these threats, we do not expect J.P. Morgan’s Russell 1000 Diversified Factor ETF to face much problem in garnering assets given a unique index, the strong brand name of the issuer and multi-factor techniques. Within just a few days of its launch, JPUS has accumulated over $10.5 million of assets which gives an idea about its forthcoming success. Original Post

During A Period Of Negative Returns, The Dividend And Low Volatility Factors Again Led The Pack In The Third Quarter

Summary Dividend and low volatility factors were the clear winners in the third quarter of 2015, while small-cap, high beta and value factors lagged. Exposure to in-favor consumer discretionary and sectors aided momentum and growth factors throughout much of 2015. Although factors have been shown to outperform the broad market over long periods, they can either underperform or outperform over the short term due to market and economic conditions. High beta, small-cap momentum factors struggle amid corporate earnings concerns By Nick Kalivas In my previous blog, I discussed sector performance thus far in 2015. Here, I’d like to examine the performance of US equities via different investment styles, or “factors,” as they’re known in the world of smart beta investing. Third quarter marked by heightened volatility Factor returns in the third quarter were materially influenced by a correction in equities, which began in earnest after the July 20 market highs. This selloff was sparked in part by the deflation of the Chinese stock market bubble, which generated concerns over global economic growth and prompted many companies to lower their earnings guidance. Corporate profit estimates had already been under pressure through much of 2015 due to the lagged impact of a strong dollar, a drop in commodity prices and inventory overhang. Once earnings estimates were revised, credit spreads widened and market volatility escalated – affecting factor performance. Despite largely negative returns, there was tremendous factor dispersion in the third quarter, with a spread of nearly 15% between the best performing factors – dividend and low volatility, and the worst-performing factor – high beta. Although research has shown that many factors have historically outperformed the broad market across market cycles, the third quarter demonstrated that factors are not immune from short-term volatility. Factor returns – Q3 and YTD 2015 Source: Bloomberg L.P., Sept. 30, 2015. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. An investment cannot be made directly into an index. Factor performance: The good Among the best performing factors in the third quarter of 2015: Dividend growth. Dividend growth, as measured by the NASDAQ Dividend Achievers 50 Index, outperformed the S&P 500 Index by 3.53%. Low volatility. The large-cap S&P 500 Low Volatility Index outpaced the S&P 500 Index by 5.26%, while the S&P MidCap 400 Low Volatility Index outperformed the S&P MidCap 400 Index by 6.62%. A combination of dividend growth and low volatility. This multi-factor strategy, as defined by the S&P 500 Low Volatility High Dividend Index, generated a positive return of 0.36%, besting the S&P 500 Index by 6.80%. Quality. As defined by the S&P 500 High Quality Rankings Index, quality outperformed the broader large-cap market by 2.79%. Also note that large-cap growth stocks outpaced the S&P 500 Index by 2.28%, while large-to-mid-cap momentum stocks lagged the S&P 500 Index by just 0.16%. Both factors benefited from their exposure to the consumer discretionary and health care sectors, which displayed relatively strong earnings growth. Factor performance: The bad Large-cap value strategies, as defined by the Dynamic Large Cap Value Indellidex Index and NASDAQ Buyback Achievers Index, underperformed the S&P 500 Index by 90 to 301 basis points (0.90% to 3.01%) during the third quarter respectively. Within the value universe, buyback – a factor focusing on companies that have shown a propensity to buy back outstanding shares – was the worst performer during the quarter, while fundamental (FTSE RAFI US 1000) fared better. As a whole, value stocks were pressured by low interest rates and the cyclical slowdown in economic growth. Although value stocks often trade below their intrinsic values, they can be influenced by economic cycles and interest rates. Many value names in the financial sector fell victim to cyclical weakness during the third quarter, as evidenced by the deceleration in the Institute for Supply Management’s manufacturing index, which declined from 53.2 in June to 50.2 in September. 2 Factor performance: The ugly The worst performing factors were high beta – comprising stocks sensitive to market movements – small-cap momentum and mid-and-small-cap fundamental. The S&P 500 High Beta Index dropped 14.72% during the third quarter, while the two small-cap indexes were off by more than 10%. Concerns over an inventory correction among technology providers, continued stress in the energy sector and a dimmed profit outlook for industrials sector weighed on high beta names. Generally speaking, small-cap stocks were hurt by increased volatility, a flight to quality and rising credit spreads, although small-cap low-volatility shares fared much better. The performance of small-cap shares can be inversely related to market stress. One of the theories explaining long-term small-cap outperformance rests in investors being compensated for the added risk of owning smaller companies. In periods of risk aversion, however, buyers step away – depressing small-cap stock prices and offering buyers the potential to realize outsized future returns in exchange for taking on more risk. A second theory supporting small-cap returns is rooted in the idea that small companies grow faster than large companies and the general economy. A diminished earnings growth outlook called into questioned the vibrancy of small-cap earnings. Looking ahead Although the fourth quarter is still young, high beta stocks have shown signs of rebounding, buoyed by a recovery in cyclical and commodity shares. Contrarian investors expecting revived aggregate demand might wish to consider small cap, high beta, and value strategies, which have been out of favor for most of 2015. Conversely, those who anticipate ongoing market turbulence may want to evaluate their allocations to low volatility and quality stocks. Of course, please speak with your financial adviser before making any investment decisions. Invesco PowerShares offers a broad lineup of exchange-traded funds that track factor-based indexes. Two that were just launched this month are the PowerShares S&P 500 Value Portfolio (NYSEARCA: SPVU ) and PowerShares S&P 500 Momentum Portfolio (NYSEARCA: SPMO ). For more on factor investing, visit our Factor Investing page. 1 Bloomberg, L.P., Sept. 30, 2015 2 Institute for Supply Management, Oct. 1, 2015 See here for important disclosure information.

Investors Are Finally Putting Their Cash To Work, Primarily Into 2 Categories Of Assets

The title of my previous posting was “investors have been selling but haven’t yet decided what to buy.” I had studied published fund flows and discovered that money had mostly gone out of equity and corporate bond funds into money market funds and bank accounts, but very little of that money had been shifted into other assets. I speculated that, as is typical in the early stages of any U.S. equity bear market, investors were nervous about a global stock-market decline, so their first reaction was to sell without buying anything with the money. I concluded that this decision not to buy anything was temporary, and that they would soon decide to make purchases which would mostly end up surprising many analysts. During the past few weeks, investors have indeed been making clear decisions about what they most wanted to accumulate. These decisions have primarily benefited two major kinds of risk assets. It is worth examining how this will affect the financial markets going forward. Only a relatively small percentage of this money which had come out of U.S. equity funds has gone back into the previous favorites, which includes funds based upon the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the S&P 500, the Nasdaq, the Russell 2000, and similar index-based choices. Investors are progressively concluding that the best-known best-known benchmark U.S. equity indices are unlikely to keep making new all-time highs as they had routinely done in 2013-2014 and during the first several months of 2015. This is significant, because it probably means that we have transitioned from a bull market which lasted for roughly 6-1/4 years to a bear market which could persist for roughly another two years. It is also noteworthy that investors haven’t just kept their money in cash, not just because cash pays almost zero interest, but because the overall percentage declines in their overall net worth have been modest. Investors tend to pile into cash when losses have been so dramatic that they are concerned more about additional red ink than they are about making money or anything else. Investors’ tend to usually be obsessed with not missing out on rallies for the latest hot assets. Since their respective bottoms primarily in the late summer and early autumn of 2015, there have been two primary groups of outperforming securities: 1) the most popular individual names which have been soaring in recent weeks amidst widespread glowing media coverage; and 2) especially oversold and undervalued assets, some of which had suffered bear markets for several years. The second category includes most shares of commodity producers and emerging markets which mostly began their respective bear markets in April 2011 and which had generally suffered substantial losses of more than half and in some cases of more than three fourths. Let us consider each of these kinds of decisions. It is easy to see why investors would embrace the latest trendy names on Wall Street. With Oprah Winfrey buying a much-publicized stake in Weight Watchers (NYSE: WTW ), who could resist such a celebrity-laden endorsement? Similarly upbeat media coverage has also boosted the shares of stocks including Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN ), Facebook (NASDAQ: FB ), and Google (NASDAQ: GOOG ). The kinds of investors who have been buying these shares are generally amateurs who watch cable TV and browse the internet periodically, and are especially attracted to stocks which have easily remembered stories and are familiar to them in their daily lives. Whenever a bull market is transitioning to a bear market, there will be fewer and fewer winners, so more and more people will want to own whatever is going up. There is a second group of securities which is much less widely known and which so far has continued to receive mostly gloomy media coverage and negative analysts’ commentary. This includes the shares of nearly all commodity-related assets, including commodity producers and emerging-market shares. Since these achieved their respective multi-year and multi-decade bottoms primarily during the summer and early autumn of 2015, they have been among the most notable outperformers especially in subsectors including gold and silver mining which have been the biggest percentage winners during the past several weeks. Besides being much less well known than the securities listed in the previous paragraph, these have been far more popular with insiders and institutions rather than with individual investors. From a fundamental point of view, the big-name stocks listed in the previous paragraph are probably significantly overvalued and sport unusually high price-earnings ratios in the cases where they are actually making money. In sharp contrast, most commodity-related and emerging-market assets have especially low historic price-earnings ratios and are mostly trading far below their respective fair-value levels. These are compelling bargains in both absolute and relative terms. As more time passes, I believe that most of the widely popular favorites will tend to fade as they usually do as a bear market experiences a natural state of maturing. On the other hand, since they had become so unpopular, even a reduction in the gloomy tone of the media and analysts’ commentary could be accompanied by substantial percentage gains for commodity-related and emerging-market assets. Since most of these have slumped so dramatically during their extended bear markets, many of them could double and even triple while still remaining far below their peaks of recent years. For example, the First Trust ISE-Revere Natural Gas Index ETF ( FCG), a fund of natural gas producers, had plummeted by more than three fourths from its June 2014 top to its September 29, 2015 bottom of 5.43. If it merely regains half its June 2014 high then those who bought it near the bottom will end up doubling their money on those purchases which were made close to the nadir. Another example is the Market Vectors Gold Miners ETF ( GDX), which had slumped by roughly 80% to its September 11, 2015 nadir of 12.62 and has since been among the biggest winners of all exchange-traded funds. Funds of junior producers such as the Market Vectors Junior Gold Miners ETF ( GDXJ) had suffered even greater percentage declines and could thus be especially impressive in the intensity of their rebounds. Gains of hundreds of percent are possible without new highs having to be achieved. Similarly outsized percentage increases could be the most likely scenario for many subsectors related to mining and energy. If this were a horse race, these should be favorites but instead carry the odds of long-shot dark horses. It is noteworthy that the kinds of behavior which typified the bear markets for commodity producers and emerging markets have been much less prevalent in recent weeks. Early intraday lows tend to be followed more frequently by rebound attempts. Many of these shares have formed several higher lows in recent weeks. Insiders had mostly been significant buyers near all low points during the past several months, while fund outflows had reached all-time record extremes for many subsectors. Most analysts and brokerages have continued to reiterate the downside targets for these generally unpopular assets, so that hasn’t yet been transformed into progressively more bullish commentary which will likely begin to occur more frequently in the near future. Since many of these securities have been among the biggest percentage winners in recent weeks, they are slowly attracting the attention of momentum players and other groups of potential buyers. Some of their purchases have been especially untimely, tending to occur following recent extended short-term strength which usually leads to a rapid short-term correction in order to shake out the sell stops which so many of these kinds of traders tend to employ. We saw such a rapid correction especially on Friday, October 16 and Monday, October 19, 2015, and there will likely be more of them whenever people have become too optimistic toward their short-term behavior. Eventually, I expect to see amateurs following insiders and institutions in becoming buyers, since they will observe that many of these assets have doubled, tripled, or better, and will hate to miss out completely on such strong rallies. As is usually the case during any bull market, the earliest buyers tend to be insiders and deep value accumulators. This tends to be followed by a wide range of buyers at each step on the way up, until finally amateurs are eagerly participating while insiders begin selling. I think that we are probably a very long way from having to be concerned that these rallies are over or nearly so–especially since so much of the commentary on the internet in recent days has suggested that these rebounds are finished and that these assets should be sold short. A rally for anything doesn’t end with most people believing that new historic lows lie shortly ahead, but when almost everyone is asking themselves how much higher it is likely to go and how long it will take for various upside targets to be surpassed. Disclosure: In August-September 2013, and at various points during 2014-2015, I have been buying the shares of emerging-market country funds whenever they have appeared to be most undervalued. Since June 2013, I have added periodically to funds of mining shares–and more recently energy shares–especially following their most extended pullbacks. I have also been accumulating HDGE whenever U.S. equity indices are near their peaks; HDGE is an actively-managed fund that sells short U.S. equities. I believe that U.S. assets of almost all kinds have become dangerously overvalued. From my largest to my smallest position, I currently own GDXJ, KOL, SIL, XME, HDGE, COPX, GDX, EWZ, RSX, REMX, GLDX, URA, FCG, IDX, GXG, VGPMX, ECH, VNM, BGEIX, NGE, RSXJ, PLTM, EPU, TUR, SILJ, SOIL, EPHE, and THD. In the late spring of 2014, I sold all of my SCIF which had briefly become my fourth-largest holding, because euphoria over the Indian election was irrationally overdone and this fund had more than doubled. I have reduced my total cash position to roughly 3% of my total liquid net worth in order to increase my holdings in the above assets. I sold all of my SLX by acting whenever steel insiders were doing likewise. I also sold all of my FCG when insiders were unloading, but I repurchased FCG in recent months following its collapse of more than three fourths of its June 2014 peak because there had been intense buying by top corporate insiders of companies which produce natural gas. I expect the S&P 500 to eventually lose about two thirds of its May 2015 peak valuation, with its next bear-market bottom occurring within several months of October 2017. The Russell 2000 Index and its funds including IWM had only modestly surpassed their highs from the first week of March 2014, while the Russell Microcap Index (NYSEARCA: IWC ) marginally surpassed its zenith from March 6, 2014. The S&P 500 Index set a new all-time high on numerous occasions during the same period, and may have completed its final top for the cycle at 2134.72 on May 20, 2015. This marks a classic negative divergence which previously occurred in years including 1928-1929, 1972-1973, and 2007. Those who have “forgotten” or never learned the lessons of previous bear markets are doomed to repeat their mistakes.