Tag Archives: seeking

Avoiding Panic: Keep Your Head And Look To Short Volatility

U.S. stock market performance has taken a turn for the worse in the week of August 17. Volatility has risen dramatically for several reasons, including China currency actions and expectations for near-term Fed action. SVXY, the ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF, has taken a hit as volatility has spiked to levels not seen since 2011. Rising volatility represents an opportunity to find an attractive entry point in SVXY. The U.S. stock markets have proven remarkably tame in 2015 until the recent volatility in August. From the beginning of the year until the middle of August, the S&P 500 had risen 1.6%. However, this past trading week, from August 17 to August 21, the S&P dropped almost 6%, leaving the index at a 4.3% loss for the year. While market reactions can never be predicted in advance, the pundits can often retrospectively flag the reasons, namely China’s currency actions, North/South Korea war games, the Iran deal, you name it. During this same week, volatility, as measured by the VIX, sky rocketed, starting the week at the mid-14s and rising to nearly 28 at the close of regular trading hours on Friday, nearly doubling. The VIX rose more than 45% on Friday alone. ^VIX data by YCharts At this level, the VIX is reaching territory not seen this year, and looking back, not since 2011. ^VIX data by YCharts While spikes in the fear gauge are event-driven, in the background, the U.S. economy is chugging along, with slow but moderate growth, the hallmark of the economic recovery over the past 5-6 years. US GDP data by YCharts This slow but steady economic growth, along with the decrease in unemployment rate , creates positive long-term economic trends for the U.S. We have been in a bull market for a number of years, and the rise in employment, along with the rising dollar creating lower priced foreign goods, should continue to provide for slow but steady economic growth. Therefore, the spike in the VIX represents, yet again, an opportunity to trade in volatility and seek to capture short-term gains. While there are several ways to play this, my preferred approach is to trade in the ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF (NYSEARCA: SVXY ). SVXY dropped over 16% on Friday August 21, to 70.39. While this is not a low for the year, as a short VIX vehicle, traders can opt to stage their buys into SVXY to capture the eventual decrease in volatility when the latest threat blows over. Now the “pressure” on SVXY to rise or fall depends on contango or backwardation, and several Seeking Alpha authors have written great articles about them, so there is no reason to summarize the issue further. Looking at contango or backwardation is the logical approach for short-term traders and after the dramatic rise in volatility, the VIX will be backwardation. While SVXY is generally viewed as a short-term vehicle, there is no denying that over its history, a 5-year buy and hold would have generated great returns. SVXY data by YCharts However, the volatility of this volatility vehicle is outstanding with the potential for significant draw-downs. It would require immense discipline to hold SVXY for the long term, given human behavior – you would literally need to put money away with no access possible for a decade or more. But if done, it could be highly profitable – and one great article suggests that over the long term, if one could hold and avoid trading in SVXY, huge amounts of wealth could be generated. While each investor needs to invest according to his/her own philosophy, timeline and risk tolerance, seeking an opportunity in SVXY when it spikes has proven to be worth a look. Disclosure: I am/we are long SVXY. (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.

Best And Worst Q3’15: Mid Cap Blend ETFs, Mutual Funds And Key Holdings

Summary Mid Cap Blend style ranks ninth in Q3’15. Based on an aggregation of ratings of 19 ETFs and 332 mutual funds. CZA is our top-rated Mid Cap Blend ETF and LSIRX is our top-rated Mid Cap Blend mutual fund. The Mid Cap Blend style ranks ninth out of the 12 fund styles as detailed in our Q3’15 Style Ratings for ETFs and Mutual Funds report. It gets our Dangerous rating, which is based on an aggregation of ratings of 19 ETFs and 332 mutual funds in the Mid Cap Blend style. See a recap of our Q2’15 Style Ratings here. Figures 1 and 2 show the five best and worst-rated ETFs and mutual funds in the style. Not all Mid Cap Blend style ETFs and mutual funds are created the same. The number of holdings varies widely (from 20 to 3281). This variation creates drastically different investment implications and, therefore, ratings. Investors seeking exposure to the Mid Cap Blend style should buy one of the Attractive-or-better rated ETFs or mutual funds from Figures 1 and 2. Figure 1: ETFs with the Best & Worst Ratings – Top 5 (click to enlarge) * Best ETFs exclude ETFs with TNAs less than $100 million for inadequate liquidity. Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings The Proshares S&P MidCap 400 Dividend Aristocrats ETF (NYSEARCA: REGL ) and the Validea Market Legends ETF (NASDAQ: VALX ) are excluded from Figure 1 because their total net assets are below $100 million and do not meet our liquidity minimums. Figure 2: Mutual Funds with the Best & Worst Ratings – Top 5 (click to enlarge) * Best mutual funds exclude funds with TNAs less than $100 million for inadequate liquidity. Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings The Boson Trust Midcap Fund (MUTF: BTMFX ) and the Johnson Opportunity Fund (MUTF: JOPPX ) are excluded from Figure 2 because their total net assets are below $100 million and do not meet our liquidity minimums. The Guggenheim Mid-Cap Core ETF (NYSEARCA: CZA ) is the top-rated Mid Cap Blend ETF and the Legg Mason ClearBridge Mid Cap Core Fund (MUTF: LSIRX ) is the top-rated Mid Cap Blend mutual fund. CZA earns an Attractive rating and LSIRX earns a Very Attractive rating. The State Street Russell Small Cap Completeness ETF (NYSEARCA: RSCO ) is the worst-rated Mid Cap Blend ETF and the Satuit Capital US SMID Cap Fund (MUTF: SATDX ) is the worst-rated Mid Cap Blend mutual fund. RSCO earns a Dangerous rating and SATDX earns a Very Dangerous rating. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (NASDAQ: GT ) is one of our favorite stocks held by Mid Cap Blend funds and earns our Attractive rating. Since 2009, the company has grown after-tax profit ( NOPAT ) by 24% compounded annually. Goodyear currently earns a return on invested capital ( ROIC ) of 9%, which is triple the 3% earned in 2009. On a trailing-twelve month basis, Goodyear has generated over $2.6 billion in free cash flow which results in an impressive 16% FCF yield. At the current price of $30/share, Goodyear Tire has a price to economic book value (PEBV) ratio of 0.6. This ratio implies that the market expects Goodyear’s profits to permanently decline by 40%. The ratio also tells us that the no-growth, or economic book value of GT is $46/share – a 53% upside. DreamWorks Animation (NASDAQ: DWA ), a prior Danger Zone stock , is one of our least favorite stocks held by Mid Cap Blend funds and earns our Dangerous rating. Since 2010, NOPAT has plummeted from $104 million to -$13 million as creating movies became more costly and less profitable. DreamWorks currently earns a bottom-quintile ROIC of 1%, which is a fraction of the 19% earned in 2009. Despite the deterioration of DreamWorks’ business strength, the stock remains overvalued. To justify the current price of $19/share, DreamWorks must immediately achieve pre-tax (NOPBT) margins of 10% (similar to 2013 margin versus -2.5% in 2014) and grow revenue by 20% compounded annually for the next eight years . We feel the expectations embedded in DWA are highly optimistic given that, in addition to the issues raised above, revenue has declined in each of the last four years. Figures 3 and 4 show the rating landscape of all Mid Cap Blend ETFs and mutual funds. Figure 3: Separating the Best ETFs From the Worst Funds (click to enlarge) Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Figure 4: Separating the Best Mutual Funds From the Worst Funds (click to enlarge) Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings D isclosure: David Trainer and Max Lee receive no compensation to write about any specific stock, style, style or theme. 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. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

A Conservative Tactical Momentum Strategy Using Bond ETFs

Summary A simple tactical asset allocation strategy is described that selects one ETF each month from a basket of 5 essentially non-correlated bond ETFs. 4-month and 2-month returns are used to determine the top-ranked ETF each month. The backtest results of the strategy (1998 – present) using mutual fund proxies for the ETFs indicate a CAGR of 14.8% and a maximum monthly drawdown of -10.7%. There are no negative annual returns even in 2001, 2002 and 2008. Any investor can easily set up and trade the strategy using the free Portfolio Visualizer software. In the current market turmoil, many investors are looking for a more conservative bond strategy to reduce risk. In this article, I present a new bond tactical asset allocation strategy that is relatively simple and may be attractive to such investors. One of the obstacles in developing a tactical bond strategy is the short history of bond ETFs. This allows rather limited backtesting of bond ETFs. In order to extend the backtesting timeframe, mutual funds that have longer histories are selected as proxies to the ETFs. The proxy mutual funds are selected based on correlation and performance with their ETF counterparts. The strategy was developed using the free Portfolio Visualizer (PV) software. I first selected bond assets that were relatively non-correlated to each other. Shown below is the basket of assets I decided to use; the basket is similar to the basket used by Frank Grossmann in his “Bond Rotation ‘Sleep Well’ Strategy.” I have listed the ETFs followed by its mutual fund proxy and the average correlation coefficient between ETF and mutual fund proxy. Convertible Bonds: SPDR Barclays Capital Convertible Bond ETF ( CWB) – I nvesco Convertible Securities Fund ( CNSAX) (Correlation = 0.84) High Yield Bonds: SPDR Barclays Capital High Yield Bond ETF ( JNK) – Fidelity Advisor High Income Advantage Fund ( FAHDX) (Correlation = 0.63) Long Term Treasury: iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF ( TLT) – Vanguard Long Term Treasury Fund ( VUSTX) (Correlation = 0.98) Short Term Treasury: iShares 1-3 Year Treasury Bond ETF ( SHY) – Vanguard Short Term Treasury Fund ( VFISX) (Correlation = 0.80) Emerging Market Bonds: PowerShares Emerging Markets Sovereign Debt Portfolio ETF ( PCY) – T. Rowe Price Emerging Markets Bond Fund ( PREMX) (Correlation = 0.40) PREMX is the only proxy that has somewhat poor correlation to its ETF cousin PCY, but it was the best I could do. A chart from Stockcharts that presents the performance of PCY and PREMX is shown below. The chart shows that PREMX is a reasonable proxy for PCY. (click to enlarge) Asset correlation coefficients for the mutual funds for 07/28/1997 – 08/18/2015 based on daily returns are shown below. The correlation coefficients from PV are the overall coefficients over the entire backtest period. The mutual funds are generally non-correlated or negatively correlated, although a few of the correlations are greater than what I wanted. (click to enlarge) I selected the top-ranked fund each month based on relative strength returns of four months and two months. The overall rankings were based on a weighting of 51% on the four-month rankings and 49% on the two-month rankings. The results taken from PV in tabular form and graphical form (with permission) are shown below. This strategy has a CAGR of 14.8% and a maximum monthly drawdown of -10.7%. This compares to a CAGR of 6.5% and a maximum monthly drawdown of -51% for the S&P 500. It would have been better to use a bond-based fund instead of the S&P 500 as a benchmark, but that option was not available in PV. (click to enlarge) (click to enlarge) There are no negative return years; the worst year is 2001 with a return of +1.5%. The annual returns each year are shown in the table below. The final step in backtesting this strategy is to compare the results of the ETFs with the results of the mutual funds from 2010 – present. The 2010 start date was dictated by the origin of the youngest ETF in the basket. The results for the ETFs and the mutual funds are shown below. The ETFs give similar results as the mutual funds. ETF results (2010-present): (click to enlarge) (click to enlarge) Mutual fund results (2010-present): (click to enlarge) (click to enlarge) The same strategy using the ETFs was executed with the commercial ETFreplay software. The results are shown below. The ETFreplay results were comparable to the PV results, but the ETFreplay results did not exactly replicate the PV results. The CAGR is 15.8% for ETFreplay and 17.4% for PV from 2010 – present. The maximum daily drawdown in the ETFreplay trading scheme is – 10.9%. The maximum monthly drawdown using PV is -6.1%. (A monthly drawdown calculation will always be better than a daily drawdown calculation.) These differences between ETFreplay and PV are primarily caused by ETFreplay using trading days to calculate returns while PV uses calendar months. Also, the data sources may not be the same. (click to enlarge) Another option with this strategy is to select two funds each month instead of only one fund. As would be expected, the performance is reduced, and the risk is improved (i.e. lower drawdown). In the two-fund scenario from 1998 – present using PV, the CAGR is 12.5% and the maximum monthly drawdown is -7.0%. The two-fund scheme also has positive returns every year. Any investor can go to the PV website and run these calculations and determine the monthly ETF selection at no cost. This momentum strategy seems to have potential as a conservative investment strategy based on backtesting to 1998, with the usual caveat that the strategy depends on how faithful the mutual fund proxies mirror their ETF counterparts. Please use this strategy at your own risk. 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. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.