Tag Archives: seeking

Extended Duration ETFs Head To Head: EDV Vs. ZROZ

With the Fed still hesitating to hike the benchmark interest rates even almost after a decade, bond investing prevails. In any case, September was a chancy month for the lift-off. But a global market rout in August led by the Chinese market crash, slouching commodities and their shockwaves on other emerging economies held the Fed back from catapulting a lift-off. Not only this, the Fed slashed its projection for the benchmark interest rate for 2015, 2016 and 2017. The Fed’s funds rate for the longer run was cut to 3.0-4.0% from 3.3-4.3%, suggesting a slower rate hike trail. The expectation for 2015 real GDP growth has been upgraded to 1.9-2.5% from 1.7-2.3% projected in June while the same for 2016 was lowered to 2.1-2.8% from 2.3-3.0%. This economic backdrop pulled down the bond yields and drove up bond prices, especially the long-term ones. Yield on the benchmark 10-Year U.S. Treasury note plunged to 2.16% on September 23 from 2.54% recorded in the year-ago period. Yield on the 30-year U.S. Treasury note fell 50 bps to 2.75% on September 23. This, along with geopolitical uncertainty, global slowdown, stubbornly low oil prices and deflation fears are also driving demand for safe-haven bonds. Since long-term bonds offer up greater yield in this yield-starved economy, investors thronged to the long-dated Treasury bonds and the related ETFs. Investors should note that U.S. long-term Treasury bonds turned out compelling investments in 2014. Though the looming Fed lift-off is a negative for U.S. treasury ETFs, 10-year U.S. Treasuries outdid their Group of Seven counterparts in the August equities collapse, as per Bloomberg . In such a scenario, it would be intriguing to look at two top performing long-term U.S. Treasury bond ETFs and their key differences: Vanguard Extended Duration Treasury ETF (NYSEARCA: EDV ) For a long-term play on the bond market, investors have EDV, a fund that seeks to match the performance of the Barclays U.S. Treasury STRIPS 20-30 Year Equal Par Bond Index. This means that this benchmark zeroes in on fixed income securities that are sold at a discount to face value, and then the investor is paid the face value upon maturity. As such, these bonds are usually very sensitive to interest rate changes, and can be greatly impacted by shifting rates. This particular 73 bond basket has an average maturity of 25.2 years, and a yield to maturity of 3%. The effective duration of the ETF stands at 24.8 years suggesting high interest rate risks. The fund has amassed about $364 million in assets. Investors should also note that this is a cheap product, as it charges just 12 basis points a year, so it will be a very low cost way to get into long duration bonds. However, the real selling point as of late has been price appreciation as EDV gained about 3% post Fed meeting in September. However, the fund has lost about 6% in the year-to-date time frame on rising rate worries. In the last one year (as of September 23, 2015), the fund was up about 6.4%. This Zacks Rank #2 (Buy) ETF yields 2.99% annually. PIMCO 25+ Year Zero Coupon U.S. Treasury Index ETF (NYSEARCA: ZROZ ) This ETF follows the BofA Merrill Lynch Long US Treasury Principal STRIPS Index, which focuses on Treasury principal STRIPS that have 25 years or more remaining to final maturity. The product holds 20 securities in its basket. Both the effective maturity and effective duration of the fund is 27.22 years. This fund is often overlooked by investors as depicted by AUM of $182.74 million. The product charges 15 bps in annual fees and returned 3.8% in the last five trading sessions (as of September 23, 2015) reflecting a dovish Fed. The fund was up over 6% in the last one year while so far this year the product has shed about 6.7%. The fund yields 2.92% annually and has a Zacks ETF Rank #2. Since, ZROZ has a little higher duration and maturity, it can outperform when rates are downhill; but with the Fed preparing for a lift-off sometime in 2015 or as late as early 2016, ZROZ will likely lag EDV going forward. Link to the original post on Zacks.com

Is Leverage Really An Advantage In Equity Closed-End Funds?

Prevailing wisdom holds that bullish market conditions favor leveraged, equity closed-end funds. Similarly, declining or flat markets are seen as favoring the unleveraged, option-income equity closed end funds. I look at comparable funds of each type for the period 2006 through 2015YTD to see how well this premise holds up. Closed-end funds (or CEFs) are primarily about income, less so about beating the market. If I may generalize, it’s the rare equity closed-end fund that beats, or even matches, other investment vehicles in its individual arena over sustained periods of time; but nearly all of them provide high levels of distribution income to their investors. If you’re not interested in the high yield, for domestic equity, you’re almost always going to be ahead of the game in either individual holdings, wisely chosen, or a solid indexed ETF. Of course there are exceptions; every generalization has exceptions, and I welcome your examples if you want to share them (with evidence if you please). But, by and large, I think this view holds up to careful scrutiny. Of course, some have success trading funds as their discounts and premiums fluctuate, or rack up gains in odd arbitrage situations that occasionally come up for CEFs, but that’s more specialized than what I have in mind. For the purposes of this article, I’m considering equity CEFs held primarily for current income and capital appreciation. For equity CEFs, there are two paths to generating that high income with capital appreciation. First is by exploiting the power of leverage to drive gains, and second is by an aggressive use of option trading, especially covered calls. Each strategy has its upsides and downsides. The conventional wisdom is that option funds are more defensive and do better in down or sideways markets. By this view, leveraged equity funds are at their best in strongly bullish markets. Makes sense, but the subject has come up several times in comment streams and private messages questioning those assertions when I’ve repeated them. I’ve been looking for evidence to support (or negate) that particular set of generalizations. I’m sure such research exists, but I’ve not put my hands on it so I thought I’d take a quick look. What I’ll report on here is not a rigorous analysis. It has a limited number of data points, covers a brief period, and is hardly more than observational in the large scheme of things. But it is what I’ve been able to put it together without an excessive investment of time given the limited sets of data I have access to. I would encourage anyone so inclined to make a more detailed analysis. For the present, I think CEF investors will find even a cursory analysis interesting enough to generate discussion. I decided to look at CEFs from a single sponsor. I selected 6 Eaton Vance equity closed-end funds, 3 each leveraged and unleveraged. I picked Eaton Vance because I think a good case can be made that theirs are among the best-managed equity CEFs. That, plus I own several, so it was of interest to me on a personal portfolio level as well. Funds were chosen on the basis of having the best 3 yr returns on NAV, an arbitrary cut, but straightforward data to obtain for large numbers of funds – NAV returns for longer time periods is not readily available in formats that can be used as to filter the data. I compared total return (market) for each by calendar year using data from YCharts for each of the funds. The six funds and current values for effective leverage are: Effective Leverage EV Enhanced Equity Income II (NYSE: EOS ) 0.00% EV Tax-Managed Div Equity Inc (NYSE: ETY ) 0.00% EV Tax-Managed Buy-Write Opps (NYSE: ETV ) 0.00% EV Tax Advantaged Dividend Inc (NYSE: EVT ) 21.05% EV Tax Adv Global Dividend Inc (NYSE: ETG ) 23.25% EV Tax Adv Global Div Opps (NYSE: ETO ) 24.38% The earliest year with complete data for all 6 funds is 2007. The period from 2007 through 2015 YTD covers the deep downturn of the recession and the strong bull market of the past few years, so there is a complete and extreme cycle. Plotting the average, maximum and minimum returns from the three funds of each class produces these charts. It’s clear that the leveraged funds fared much more poorly in the 2008 bear market than did the unleveraged funds. But it is difficult to see a clear pattern over the other years. To bring some clarity, I calculated the excess return of leveraged funds vs. unleveraged funds for each year, and plotted those values against annual returns of the S&P500 index. (click to enlarge) In this plot the Y axis represents the level of relative performance by leveraged funds and unleveraged funds. Outperformance by leveraged funds is represented by the area above the 0 line. Differences between funds in the two categories are shown here in basis points, so these data include highly meaningful differences in return to an investor. The trend line is consistent with the predicted relationship: For down years the option-income funds outperform. The correlation is weak at best, however: r 2 for the relationship is only 0.188. The trend line we see in this chart is strongly influenced by the 2008 data where, as we have already seen, the unleveraged funds strongly outperformed (in the sense of being much less negative) the leveraged funds. What happens if we look at the chart with that heavy weight of 2008 omitted? A different picture, but not one that adds clarity, emerges. (click to enlarge) What we see here is a weak trend in the opposite direction. The trend is even weaker than when 2008 is included (r2 = -0.069). Unleveraged funds outperformed the leveraged funds during the two years of highest returns for the S&P 500 (2009, 2013). This result cuts against that predicted from conventional wisdom. The leveraged funds did, however, outperform in years with moderately high returns, but from the full set of results that can as easily be attributed to chance as any advantage derived from market conditions that those funds may have had. The best we can say here is that any outperformance by leveraged funds is essentially uncorrelated to broader market performance. So, how fares the prevailing dogma on the topic? There’s a bit here to support it, in the sense that for the disastrous 2008, leveraged funds suffered much deeper losses than the unleveraged funds. But beyond that extreme case, which is after all only a single data point, there is little to support (or negate) the prevailing view that strongly up markets favor the leveraged funds. Clearly, this is only a glimpse at the full situation but, to my mind, there is sufficient information here to call into question idea that there are advantages for leverage funds in relation to prevailing market up trends. Which leads to the question: If leveraged funds cannot consistently outperform in bullish markets, why invest in them at all? I think an evaluation of the advantages or disadvantages of investing in leveraged equity is particularly relevant to the current situation where rising interest rates will increase leverage costs, however modestly, thereby increasing the drag on those funds. I have been avoiding leveraged equity CEFs for some time, in part because of the widely held view that less bullish markets favor the option-income funds, and in part because of previous research ( Debunking the Myth of Leverage for Closed-End Funds ), which did not consider overall market conditions, that showed little advantage to leverage in closed-end funds of various categories. As readers know, I am a fan of CEFs for providing income with capital preservation — as bond substitutes if you will. It’s been my view, which this brief look at the issue supports, that option-income is a more effective strategy for accomplishing those objectives than simply throwing leverage at it. So, for those looking for an explicit conclusion: Leverage is unlikely to provide returns that justify its inherent risk, even under conditions that are assumed to favor leveraged investing.

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).