Tag Archives: seeking-alpha

How To Avoid The Worst Sector ETFs: Q4’15

Summary The large number of ETFs has little to do with serving your best interests. Below are three red flags you can use to avoid the worst ETFs. The following presents the least and most expensive sector ETFs as well as the worst overall sector ETFs per our Q4’15 sector ratings. Question: Why are there so many ETFs? Answer: ETF providers tend to make lots of money on each ETF so they create more products to sell. The large number of ETFs has little to do with serving your best interests. Below are three red flags you can use to avoid the worst ETFs: Inadequate Liquidity This issue is the easiest to avoid, and our advice is simple. Avoid all ETFs with less than $100 million in assets. Low levels of liquidity can lead to a discrepancy between the price of the ETF and the underlying value of the securities it holds. Plus, low asset levels tend to mean lower volume in the ETF and larger bid-ask spreads. High Fees ETFs should be cheap, but not all of them are. The first step here is to know what is cheap and expensive. To ensure you are paying at or below average fees, invest only in ETFs with total annual costs below 0.54%, which is the average total annual costs of the 196 U.S. equity sector ETFs we cover. Figure 1 shows the most and least expensive sector ETFs. ProShares and Direxion each provide two of the most expensive ETFs while Fidelity and Vanguard ETFs are among the cheapest. Figure 1: 5 Least and Most Expensive Sector ETFs (click to enlarge) Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Investors need not pay high fees for quality holdings. The PowerShares KBW Property & Casualty Insurance Portfolio (NYSEARCA: KBWP ) earns our Very Attractive rating and has low total annual costs of only 0.39%. On the other hand, the Schwab U.S. REIT ETF (NYSEARCA: SCHH ) receives our Neutral rating due to its poor holdings. No matter how cheap an ETF, if it holds bad stocks, its performance will be bad. The quality of an ETFs holdings matters more than its price. Poor Holdings Avoiding poor holdings is by far the hardest part of avoiding bad ETFs, but it is also the most important because an ETF’s performance is determined more by its holdings than its costs. Figure 2 shows the ETFs within each sector with the worst holdings or portfolio management ratings . Figure 2: Sector ETFs with the Worst Holdings (click to enlarge) Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings PowerShares appears more often than any other providers in Figure 2, which means that they offer the most ETFs with the worst holdings. Our overall ratings on ETFs are based primarily on our stock ratings of their holdings. The Danger Within Buying an ETF without analyzing its holdings is like buying a stock without analyzing its business and finances. Put another way, research on ETF holdings is necessary due diligence because an ETF’s performance is only as good as its holdings’ performance. Barron’s agrees . PERFORMANCE OF ETFs HOLDINGs = PERFORMANCE OF ETF Disclosure: David Trainer and Kyle Guske II receive no compensation to write about any specific stock, sector, or theme.

Capturing The Move Higher In 3-Month Deposit Rates

Summary What we’re trading and how. Full disclosure of trade entry, objective and strategy. If the Fed’s expectations for rates are right this position will appreciate from $2,050 at 0.82% to $5,000 at 2.00% by December 19, 2016. Linked is an interactive risk/reward spreadsheet enabling you to experiment with any potential outcome for this trade or your own trading criteria. I’ve included instructions on how to use the interactive risk reward spreadsheet. Three-month deposit rates outside the Treasury system (Eurodollars) are the most liquid futures contract on the board. Open interest (contracts outstanding) is greater than the Dow, S&P, Gold, Silver, Crude Oil, Gasoline, Euro-FX, Yen, Pound, Canadian and Australian dollars combined. (6.9 million versus 11.3 million) Click here if you’re not familiar with what this rate is, how it’s set and the underlying futures contract. Capturing the move higher This simple trade runs through December 19, 2016. Short the December 2016 ( GEZ16 ) 3 month rate futures contract at 99.18, trading this rate higher from 0.82% contract value $2,050. Objective = 98.00, rate 2.00% contract value $5,000 consistent with the lowest of the Fed’s disclosed expectations . Click here to enlarge the rate, price valuation chart below A short 99.18, B objective 98.00. (Video 1:59) Last objective guidance of where Fed Chair Yellen sees the Fed funds rate and when. Source: Federal Reserve Correlation between the Fed funds and 3-month deposit rates (Eurodollars) the average for the 3 month is +.25% to Fed funds. (click to enlarge) Qualify risk/reward by experimenting with any potential outcome for this trade and match it to your current risk investments. Click here and open the December 2016 risk/reward spreadsheet. When the spreadsheet opens enable it. Click here for current quotes and charts (December 2016) enabling you to track this trade or experiment with any potential outcome for this trade using the data on the Exchange’s site. How to use the spreadsheet 1) Entry Price = short December 2016 at 99.18 (B-9) 2) Enter any contract price in cell B-3 3) C-3 Shows the rate the contract price represents 4) D-3 Initial investment 5) E-3 Net profit or loss 6) F-3 Net liquidating value 7) C-4 Deposit per contract Any entries can be changes to experiment with your own criteria. Click to enlarge Click here for the CME Fedwatch for rate expectations

4 Things To Understand About Your Portfolio’s Margin Of Safety

By Ronald Delegge Does your portfolio have a margin of safety? I ask that question because the total U.S. stock market (NYSEARCA: SCHB ) has been rocky over the past few weeks and now has a year-to-date (YTD) loss of -1.23%. And since most investors underperform the stock market and the index ETFs tied to it, it’s fair to assume many people have much worse performance. The concept “margin of safety” was originally developed in the 1930s by Benjamin Graham and David Dodd, the founders of modern day value investing. Unlike today’s faceless generation of “roboadvisors” that have never experienced a bear market, let alone survived one, Graham and Dodd lived through the Great Depression so they understood the importance of investing with safety. Although their idea was applied to selecting individual stocks at undervalued prices, Dodd and Graham’s principles about safety are applicable to anyone with a portfolio of investments that owns not just stocks (NYSEARCA: VT ), but bonds (NYSEARCA: JNK ), real estate (NYSEARCA: VNQ ), and even commodities (NYSEARCA: GSG ). Here are four things all individual investors need to understand about their portfolio’s margin of safety: Installing a margin of safety within your portfolio should always happen before a negative event In my online course, “Build, Grow, and Protect Your Money: A Step-by-Step Guide,” I teach how the prudent investor does not wait for a market crash or another adverse global event to build a margin of safety within their investment portfolio. Rather, your portfolio’s margin of safety – just like an insurance policy – is purchased ahead of the accident or crisis in order to protect your capital. Investing money without a margin of safety, whether done deliberately or out of plain ignorance, is negligent. Building an architecturally sound investment portfolio doesn’t happen by chance All structurally strong and healthy portfolios have three crucial parts: 1) the portfolio’s core, 2) the portfolio’s non-core, and 3) the portfolio’s “margin of safety.” (See image below) Each of these containers within your portfolio will complement each other by deliberating holding non-overlapping assets. “I’m a long-term investor” or “the stock market always bounces back” is not prudent risk management Some people have deceived themselves into believing their IRA, 401(k), or other investments require no margin of safety. This group of individuals generally believes they are too wealthy, too experienced, and too smart to have a margin of safety inside their portfolio. It’s a paradox too, because this same group that invests without a margin of safety (or insurance), has insurance (or margin of safety) on their automobiles, homes, and lives. Somewhere along the line, this group of people lacks the same prudent sense to protect their financial assets. Investing in gold and bonds is not appropriate for your portfolio’s margin of safety Many people along with certain financial advisors make the rookie mistake of believing that assets like bonds (NYSEARCA: BND ) or gold (NYSEARCA: GLD ) can be used for a portfolio’s margin of safety. Why is this approach fundamentally wrong? Because both bonds and precious metals – just like stocks and real estate – are subject to daily fluctuations and can lose market value. For example, anybody that bought gold at its height in mid-2011 is now down over 42% and should know from first hand experience that gold is an inappropriate tool for margin of safety money. In conclusion, implementing your portfolio’s margin of safety should happen when market conditions are favorable, not when it’s raining cannonballs. And if you’re caught in the unfortunate situation where you failed to implement a margin of safety during good times and market conditions have deteriorated, the next most logical moment to implement your margin of safety is immediately. Disclosure: None Original Post