Tag Archives: seeking-alpha

Best And Worst Performing Currency ETFs Of 2014

Currency markets had an eventful 2014 with the U.S. dollar touching multi-year highs against a basket of major currencies. Improving U.S. economic data, escalating geopolitical tensions, diverging central bank policies around the world and chances of a sooner-than-expected rate tightening cycle in the U.S. were some of the factors contributing to a stronger greenback. In fact, divergence in monetary policies across the globe was one of the primary factors for the strong advance in dollar this year against major currencies. While the Fed has wrapped up its QE program and is expected to start raising rates sometime this year, central banks of some of the major developed nations have stepped up their monetary stimulus programs to stimulate their struggling economies. Stronger U.S. recovery and speculations of a faster-than-expected rate hike are leading investors to pull out capital from emerging markets and pour it into U.S. stocks, causing the currencies of these nations to take a plunge. Given this, we have highlighted two of the best performing and worst performing currency ETFs of 2014 below. These were big movers in the currency market, and undoubtedly investors are expecting big things out of these currencies in 2015 as well: Best Currency ETFs of 2014 Market Vectors Indian Rupee/USD ETN (NYSEARCA: INR ) Indian equity markets have posted stellar performances this year driven by optimism over the new pro-reform, business-friendly government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In fact, the Indian economy has been witnessing improving macroeconomic conditions led by better-than-expected corporate earnings, a falling inflation level and improving manufacturing and industrial production. Moreover, steps taken by the RBI governor have been successful in narrowing the current account deficit. These factors led the Indian rupee to be the best performing major currency worldwide against the dollar during 2014 and INR to be the best currency ETF this year. The fund tracks the performance of the S&P Indian Rupee Total Return Index, providing exposure to exchange rate movement of the U.S. Dollar against the Indian Rupee. The product is, however, quite unpopular and illiquid with an asset base of under $2 million and average trading volume of 27,000 shares a day. The fund charges 55 basis points as fees and has returned 14% this year. INR currently has a Zacks ETF Rank #3 or Hold rating. PowerShares DB USD Bull ETF (NYSEARCA: UUP ) Thanks to a stronger U.S. economic recovery led by higher-than-expected U.S. GDP growth numbers, renewed optimism in housing activity, continued job creation and rising consumer confidence combined with global factors, the U.S. dollar emerged as a strong currency this year. The fund tracks the performance of the Deutsche Bank Long US Dollar Index (USDX) Futures Index to provide exposure to the performance of U.S. Dollar against the following currencies: Euro, Japanese Yen, British Pound, Canadian Dollar, Swedish Krona and Swiss Franc. In terms of holdings, UUP allocates nearly 58% in Euro, while 25% collectively in Japanese Yen and British Pound. The fund has so far managed an asset base of $959.9 million and sees an average daily volume of 1.8 million shares. It charges 80 bps in total fees and expenses. The fund has added 11.3% in 2014 and has a Zacks ETF Rank of 2 or ‘Buy’ rating with Medium risk outlook. Worst Currency ETFs of 2014 CurrencyShares Swedish Krona Trust ETF (NYSEARCA: FXS ) The Swedish Krona has been among the worst performing currencies in 2014 against the greenback, with FXS plunging 18% this year. This is especially true as the currency is struggling badly in the wake of record low interest rates and deflationary pressures. The central bank’s unexpected move to slash interest rates to zero in October in order to fight deflation further aggravated the situation and led the currency to struggle badly against the U.S. Dollar. The fund tracks the price of the Swedish Krona relative to the U.S. Dollar managing an asset base of $25.3 million. The fund is quite illiquid with average daily volume of just 2,000 shares. The fund charges 40 basis points as fees and currently has a Zacks ETF Rank #3 or Hold rating. CurrencyShares Japanese Yen Trust ETF (NYSEARCA: FXY ) Though the Yen was performing well in the first part of the year due to its safe haven appeal in the wake of rising geopolitical tensions, it plummeted to a seven-year low in the second half due to an ultra loose monetary policy adopted by the Bank of Japan (BoJ). Weakening growth conditions and sliding consumer prices led the BoJ to expand its monetary policy in 2014 leading to a slumping Yen. FXY measures the relative values of two currencies, the Japanese Yen against the U.S. Dollar. The fund gains in value as the Yen appreciates relative to the Dollar. The fund manages an asset base of $105 million, charges 40 basis points as fees and trades with good volumes of 200,000 shares a day. FXY plunged roughly 13.7% for 2014, continuing its long term track record of weakness and pushing its two year loss to -27%.

In Search Of Income: Covered Call CEFs (Part I – Sector Analysis)

Summary Covered call closed-end funds are popular among CEF investors for their ability to generate significant and relatively consistent income with reduced equity market risk. However, the sector has lagged other equity CEF types in the past year and is currently out of favor. Discounts widened significantly in December to about 8% (in aggregate), making this an attractive time to establish a position in covered call CEFs. Covered Call CEFs are the largest and most popular segment of equity CEFs because of their ability to generate income in a risk-managed way. This article will provide a high-level overview of the strategy employed by these funds, as well as its potential rewards and risks to help you decide whether the sector is well suited to your objectives. Our follow-up article will recommend several especially attractive CEFs within this category for income-seeking investors to consider. Universe of Included Funds The Convergence investing universe consists of more than 475 closed-end funds across all available equity and bond sectors, after filtering for funds that we consider not investable for a variety of reasons (the most common being size/liquidity, NAV transparency) The Covered Call Fund segment consists of the following closed-end funds: BlackRock Enhanced Equity Dividend Trust (NYSE: BDJ ) BlackRock International Growth & Income Trust (NYSE: BGY ) BlackRock Global Opportunities Equity Trust (NYSE: BOE ) BlackRock Enhanced Capital & Income Fund (NYSE: CII ) Eaton Vance Enhanced Equity Income Fund (NYSE: EOI ) Eaton Vance Enhanced Equity Income Fund II (NYSE: EOS ) Eaton Vance Risk-Managed Diversified Equity Income Fund (NYSE: ETJ ) Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Buy-Write Opportunities Fund (NYSE: ETV ) Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Buy-Write Opportunities Fund (NYSE: ETW ) Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Diversified Equity Income Fund (NYSE: ETY ) Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Diversified Equity Income Fund (NYSE: EXG ) First Trust Enhanced Equity Income Fund (NYSE: FFA ) GAMCO Natural Resources Gold & Income Trust (NYSE: GNT ) Guggenheim Enhanced Equity Income Fund (NYSE: GPM ) ING Global Advantage & Premium Opportunity Fund (NYSE: IGA ) ING Global Equity Dividend & Premium Opportunity Fund (NYSE: IGD ) Cohen & Steers Global Income Builder (NYSE: INB ) Voya Natural Resources Equity Income Fund (NYSE: IRR ) Madison Covered Call & Equity Strategy Fund (NYSE: MCN ) Madison Strategic Sector Premium Fund (NYSE: MSP ) NFJ Dividend&Premium Strategy Fund (NYSE: NFJ ) Columbia Seligman Premium Technology Growth Fund (NYSE: STK ) Understanding Covered Call Closed-End Funds Covered Call Funds, also commonly known as “buy-write funds”, unsurprisingly are funds that employ covered call strategies, which combine two elements: A long position in a portfolios of equities – either diversified or concentrated – which the fund manager believes will maintain or increase value A short position in call options (i.e., written options) on either individual equities or indices that are identical or similar to those held within a portfolio Because the call options are sold against identical or similar positions to those in the portfolio, they are considered “covered” by held assets, thereby neutralizing the risk normally associated with writing options. Covered call option sellers fare best when markets are trading in a narrow range. That is because the option seller relinquishes the upside potential (in excess of the strike price) in exchange for the revenue earned on the sale of the option. The missed upside opportunity in a strong bull market is given up by virtue of the existence of the outstanding option which will of certain be exercised in the event that the optioned stock is trading at a price in excess of the strike price. On the other hand, the premium on the option is a hedge against the decline in the market value of the underlying stock. The most profitable situation is where the stock price is at of just below the strike price at the time of expiration of the option. Most commonly, covered call funds will write near term (1 to 3 months to expiry) options that are slightly (1-5%) out of the money on a few representative equity indices rather than dozens of individual equities on only part of their equity portfolio, though each fund differs. It is rare that covered call CEFs apply leverage to further enhance returns. Return of Capital in Covered Call Funds Commonly, investors early in their closed-end funds discovery process will learn about the concept “return of capital” or ROC. Most often, investors (incorrectly) simplify their interpretation of ROC as an always negative red flag and staunchly avoid funds that characterize any significant part of distributions as ROC. Like most simplifications, this omits several important nuances about ROC as related to covered call funds. According to GAAP accounting principles, premiums received for writing of options cannot be booked as income until the call is (A) sold or ((NYSE: B )) settled. Further, most covered call strategies use index options (e.g., on S&P 500 futures) that are cash-settled at expiry (i.e., don’t lead to stocks being called away). During rising markets, covered call funds often generate realized losses on options and typically larger unrealized gains on the equity portfolio. As a result, funds are often required to characterize distribution of income generated from the call writing activities as ROC even when the value of the fund is increasing. Investors actually benefit from this sort of ROC because distributions characterized as ROC allow investors to delay taxes (ROC will reduce cost basis and therefore will lead to larger capital gains payments when the CEF position is sold from your account). We believe that a better measure to evaluate the performance of a fund is the increase or decrease of NAV adjusted by the distributions paid for the accounting period. As long as the fund is generating an attractive total return (comprised of NAV increases and distributions paid), ROC is not something to be feared in covered call funds. Potential Advantages of Covered Call Closed-End Funds Investors attracted to covered call CEFs may be considering alternatives in the ETF or mutual fund space. Key reasons why investors choose covered call strategies in general and closed-end fund vehicles in particular include: Enhanced Yield – The core reason why covered call strategies have found so much popularity in the realm of closed-end funds is that they offer an elegant method of generating a steady, supercharged income stream from equities without selling positions. This, of course, does not come without a price (potential capital gains) but is a prized attribute of these funds to their intended audience. Diversification – As with any CEF, a key attraction to potential investors is the ability to gain exposure to many dozens or hundreds of holdings within a single fund. This offers an efficient path to the benefits of diversification. Simplicity – Using a closed-end fund (or ETF or mutual fund, for that matter) which executes a buy-write strategy frees the individual investor from the sometimes cumbersome task of managing option portfolios, closing positions before expiry, etc. Discount Opportunities – Because closed-end funds can, and typically do, trade at a meaningful discount to the NAV , CEF investors achieve yields higher than if he or she were to invest directly in the same set of securities. CEF Covered Call funds offer discounts to NAV that vary from nearly zero to double digit percentages. There is almost no correlation between the amount of distributions and the discount to the NAV of the fund’s holdings. Thus, other factors play a part in evaluating the suitability of individual funds as will be discussed below in this article and in Part II recommendations of specific investments. A Framework for Evaluating the Sector There are many qualitative and quantitative factors that prospective investors can consider when evaluating a closed-end fund. Convergence Investments summarizes these many factors into six dimensions useful for comparing and choosing investments: Distribution Yield – How much – and what type(s) – of distribution (aka “yield”) does the fund offer? How likely is it that the fund can maintain or increase this distribution in future? NAV Performance – How has a sector’s or individual fund’s NAV changed in the recent past? What is the outlook for future NAV trends? Valuation – Where is the current market price relative to current NAV for a fund or sector? How does this premium (or discount) to NAV compare to the past and to other fund categories? Risk – What level and type of risk is an investor bearing to earn distributions and potential capital gains? Stewardship – Does a fund have strong management? Are its management fees reasonable? Does the board have shareholder-friendly policies in place? Tradeability – How readily can we take a position (long or short) in a particular fund? What are the liquidity (market cap, average daily volume) and trading costs (average spreads, short borrow fees) involved? Distribution Yield Hefty distribution yields are among the top motivators for closed-end fund investors. While there are many nuances to fund distributions, including how they’re generated and how sustainable they appear to be, the top-line yield number drives much of the sentiment and investor behavior. In aggregate, funds in the covered call segment are at the top end of the range of equity funds with an 8.5% annualized distribution on a NAV basis. Note: all distribution yields are shown as a percentage of NAV rather than market price to provide a more accurate measure of the income generated from portfolio assets. Investors holding closed-end funds at a discount to NAV will earn yields greater than the NAV yields shown below. (click to enlarge) NAV Performance Investors disagree about how to interpret recent increases in net asset value. Momentum-oriented investors may see this as a trend likely to continue, while mean reversion investors may see exactly the opposite. As a group, covered call funds have significantly lagged other types of equity closed-end funds, with approximately flat NAV returns through 2014. We view this weakness as a moderate negative because falling NAV does create risk for cuts to distribution policy and can sour investor sentiment. However, we also believe that much of this weakness has already been priced into covered call funds in the form of market discounts to NAV. (click to enlarge) Valuation A major reason to invest in closed-end funds rather than ETFs or traditional mutual funds is the possibility for informed investors to take advantage of the disconnect between fund price and fund NAV, often referred to as the fund’s premium or discount. We seek to purchase funds at sizeable discounts, and ideally at discounts beyond that which is normal relative to history and/or relative to a fund’s peers in category. Purchasing at a discount offers two attractions. First, purchasing at a discount enhances yields since an investor can own the rights to the income generated from a hypothetical $10 of net assets with only $9 of investment. Second, for investors willing to actively manage their holdings, funds purchased at particularly wide discounts can be sold at narrower discounts – or even premiums – for capital gains that enhance the total returns from a fund. Covered call funds are currently trading at about a 7% discount to NAV, in aggregate, which falls in the middle of recent historical ranges. It’s worth noting, however, that this discount has widened from 5% in the past month. We believe this widening of discounts has created a near-term buying opportunity for potential investors that are attracted to the category’s fundamentals. (click to enlarge) Note: Convergence follows the convention of representing all premiums (price > NAV) as a positive number and all discounts (price < NAV) as a negative value. Risk There are no investment free lunches. Covered call CEFs offer high single digit or even double digit yields to investors as compensation for the various risks that investors are being asked to take. As with "plain vanilla" equity funds, investors of this fund type are primarily being paid to take equity market risk (i.e., beta risk). However, one benefit of a covered call strategy is that exposure to market risk is lessened because the premiums received for call writing can cushion or offset downward swings in the value of an equity portfolio. Covered call CEFs have had a "beta" of about 0.79 vs. the S&P 500 as compared to a beta of 1.05 for "General Equity" closed-end funds - though please note that wide variation exists within every category. Stay tuned for Part 2 where we will drill into specific low-beta covered call funds. (click to enlarge) Liquidity Shorter term and larger investors give a lot of attention to liquidity of an investment, meaning the ability to quickly and efficiently enter or exit a specific position at in sufficient quantity (for them). Longer-term and smaller investors pay little attention to this aspect because they perceive that they will not require large, rapid trading into or out of a position. Covered call CEFs are among the most liquid of all CEF categories, with almost $50M per day traded (click to enlarge) Conclusion The Covered Call Closed-End Fund sector can be an attractive investment option to investors seeking significant and relatively consistent income within the typically volatile equity markets. While investors in covered call CEFs must recognize that they are partially sacrificing their claim to potential upside returns from a continued bull market, those viewing current markets as fully valued may appreciate the ability of covered call funds to generate income without rising market levels. Closed-end fund investors seemed to have soured on covered call funds in December 2014, leading to several attractively priced investments in the group. Stay tuned for the second part of this article with an in-depth profiling of top funds within this category. Additional disclosure: Convergence Investment Management may recommend various securities included within this article for inclusion for individual client portfolios. These recommendations may change at any time and are specific to the individual client's objectives and risk tolerance.

ENFR Is An Energy Sector ETF That Might Fit Very Well Under Modern Portfolio Theory

Summary I’m taking a look at ENFR as a candidate for inclusion in my ETF portfolio. The correlation to SPY is incredibly low but poor liquidity is reducing the reliability of statistics. The expense ratio is high and the holdings within the ETF could use more diversification. I wasn’t planning on using energy ETF, but the low correlation is too appealing. I’m not assessing any tax impacts. Investors should check their own situation for tax exposure. 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. I’m working on building a new portfolio and I’m going to be analyzing several of the ETFs that I am considering for my personal portfolio. One of the funds that I’m considering is the Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (NYSEARCA: ENFR ). 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. What does ENFR do? ENFR attempts to track the total return (before fees and expenses) of the Alerian Energy Infrastructure Index. At least 90% of the assets are invested in funds included in this index. There are only 30 equity securities included in the index, so I’m expecting some diversification and volatility issues. ENFR falls under the category of “Energy Limited Partnership”. Does ENFR provide diversification benefits to a portfolio? Each investor may hold a different portfolio, but I use (NYSEARCA: SPY ) as the basis for my analysis. I believe SPY, or another large cap U.S. fund with similar properties, represents the reasonable first step for many investors designing an ETF portfolio. Therefore, I start my diversification analysis by seeing how it works with SPY. I start with an ANOVA table: (click to enlarge) The correlation appears incredible at 51%. I want to see low correlations on my investments. Extremely low levels of correlation are wonderful for establishing a more stable portfolio. I consider anything under 50% to be extremely low. However, for equity securities an extremely low correlation is frequently only found when there are substantial issues with trading volumes that may distort the statistics. The statistics appear too good to be true, which usually indicates that they are. I’ll keep an eye out for things that could distort the numbers. Standard deviation of daily returns (dividend adjusted, measured since November 2013) The standard deviation is very high for the relative calm sample period. For ENFR it is .9802%. For SPY, it is 0.6748% for the same period. While I’ve covered quite a few ETFs where the standard deviation was greater than 1%, those scores usually came from periods where SPY would have a standard deviation higher than .7200%. However, if the correlation really is 51%, I could work with the high deviations. Liquidity is a problem Average trading volume is running around 10,000 shares per day. It’s not completely illiquid, but it is pretty bad. In that time period, slightly under 280 trading days, the ETF reported a change from one closing value to the next (dividend adjusted) of 0.00% on 12 occasions. That might indicate days in which no shares changed hands, or the ending price might just have been the same as the prior day because of coincidence. For SPY, it happened 0 times during that period. However, SPY also trades at a much higher share price which reduces the chance of randomly having the same closing price since a one cent change in share price represents a smaller percentage of the price. The presence of 12 days in a sample of 280 is enough that it could have a meaningful influence on the calculated standard deviation and correlation of returns. I don’t think the poor liquidity is enough to explain away the correlation only being 51%, but it does reduce the reliability of the statistics. Mixing it with SPY I also run comparisons on the standard deviation of daily returns for the portfolio assuming that the portfolio is combined with the S&P 500. For research, I assume daily rebalancing because it dramatically simplifies the math. With a 50/50 weighting in a portfolio holding only SPY and ENFR, the standard deviation of daily returns across the entire portfolio is 0.7227%. With 80% in SPY and 20% in ENFR, the standard deviation of the portfolio would have been .6615%. If an investor wanted to use ENFR as a supplement to their portfolio, the standard deviation across the portfolio with 95% in SPY and 5% in ENFR would have been .6673%. Why I use standard deviation of daily returns I don’t believe historical returns have predictive power for future returns, but I do believe historical values for standard deviations of returns relative to other ETFs have some predictive power on future risks and correlations. Yield & Taxes The distribution yield is 1.97%. I like to see strong yields for retiring portfolios because I don’t want to touch the principal. By investing in ETFs I’m removing some of the human emotions, such as panic. Higher yields imply lower growth rates (without reinvestment) over the long term, but that is an acceptable trade off in my opinion. The poor liquidity would still concern me for any investor that needed even a moderate level of liquidity in the portfolio. I’m not a CPA or CFP, so I’m not assessing any tax impacts. Expense Ratio The ETF is posting an expense ratio of .65%. I want diversification, I want stability, and I don’t want to pay for them. I’m not attracted to the high expense ratio, but I won’t eliminate the ETF on the grounds of a high expense ratio because I’m still intrigued by the very low correlation. Market to NAV The ETF is at a .07% premium to NAV currently. Premiums or discounts to NAV can change very quickly so investors should check prior to putting in an order. I wouldn’t consider .07% to be meaningful, but investors should still watch out for the bid-ask spread. Poor liquidity is frequently connected with larger spreads. Largest Holdings The diversification within the ETF is fairly bland. I expected that because the underlying index had a fairly limited number of securities as well. In my opinion, the most reasonable way to use this ETF would be as a fairly small position within a large portfolio in which the investor was willing to sink in a little time watching for the right times to enter. Specifically, they would need to be watching the spread and the premium or discount to NAV. Additionally, the investor would need to be aware of their risk tolerances and liquidity needs. For an investor that meets all those criteria, this ETF might work. (click to enlarge) Conclusion I’m currently screening a large volume of ETFs for my own portfolio. The portfolio I’m building is through Schwab, so I’m able to trade ENFR with no commissions. I have a strong preference for researching ETFs that are free to trade in my account, so most of my research will be on ETFs that fall under the “ETF OneSource” program. I’m going to keep ENFR on my list as a potential candidate despite the fairly poor liquidity and high expense ratio. I don’t have a portion of the portfolio set aside for energy stocks, so the odds may be stacked against ENFR. If ENFR is selected, it would probably be used as 3% to 5% of the portfolio value. The major incentive for me is the low correlation, so I would want to run more statistical testing on the correlation over different time periods to reduce the risk of poor liquidity creating a misleading picture. Additional disclosure: Information in this article represents the opinion of the analyst. All statements are represented as opinions, rather than facts, and should not be construed as advice to buy or sell a security. Ratings of “outperform” and “underperform” reflect the analyst’s estimation of a divergence between the market value for a security and the price that would be appropriate given the potential for risks and returns relative to other securities. The analyst does not know your particular objectives for returns or constraints upon investing. All investors are encouraged to do their own research before making any investment decision. Information is regularly obtained from Yahoo Finance, Google Finance, and SEC Database. If Yahoo, Google, or the SEC database contained faulty or old information it could be incorporated into my analysis. The analyst holds a diversified portfolio including mutual funds or index funds which may include a small long exposure to the stock.