Tag Archives: stocks

Even After Recent Drop, PGP Is A Sell

PGP trades at a large premium, putting it at risk for a steep decline. When rates rise, high premium and highly leveraged funds will suffer. Friday’s drop is a sign of how risky the fund truly is. The purpose of this article is to evaluate PIMCO Global StocksPLUS & Income Fund (NYSE: PGP ) as an investment option. To do so, I will evaluate the fund’s characteristics, recent performance, and trends within the industry as a whole to attempt to determine if PGP will be a profitable investment going in to 2016. First, a little about PGP. PGP’s stated objective is to seek a total return comprised of current income, current gains, and long-term capital appreciation. The fund attempts to achieve this objective by building a global equity and debt portfolio and investing at least 80% of the fund’s net assets in a combination of securities and instruments that provide exposure to stocks and/or produce income and by utilizing call and put options to generate gains from options premiums and protect against swift market declines. Currently, the fund is trading at $16.91/share, after Friday’s decline of 8.62%. The fund pays a monthly dividend of $.18/share, which translates to an annual yield of 12.77%. While the fund has come under pressure over the past few trading sessions, performance in the past few months has been strong, with the fund up almost 15% in the past three months, excluding dividend payments. Given that performance, and its high yield in this low rate environment, PGP may seem like a sound investment. However, there are a few reasons, which I will outline below, why I would avoid PGP going forward. First, and probably most important, PGP trades at an enormous premium to Net Asset Value (NYSE: NAV ), currently at 56.24%. This in and of itself is a red flag for any fund, as it indicates investors are paying well above the fair market rate for future performance. PGP has been able to maintain this high premium because it has a history of reliability for its dividend payout, which is high, and investors have flocked to PGP and other similar funds to earn this yield while interest rates have remained at record lows. While this strategy may have paid off during that environment, once rates start to rise, investors will shift out of riskier funds and in to safer asset classes that will begin to pay more. Funds that demand a high premium, such as PGP, will be most at risk. This was evident during Friday’s drop, as credit markets were rattled over Third Avenue’s decision to suspend redemptions on one of its credit mutual funds. This decision hit many Pimco funds hard on Friday, but funds that trade at large premiums were hit the hardest. For example, PHK, which also trades at a premium (albeit at only 10%) dropped over 7%, which was similar to PGP’s drop. Meanwhile , PCN, which trades at a 7.62% discount to NAV, dropped only 2.44% and PCI, which trades at an almost 16% discount to NAV , dropped only 1.18%. While this is just a snapshot of one trading day, it demonstrates how funds with high premiums are more sensitive to market swings and are riskier for the initial principle investment. Second, interest rates are likely to increase this week, as 92% of economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal are predicting a December rate hike to be announced during the Fed’s meeting this week. If Yellen announces a hike, and lays out the groundwork for future hikes in 2016, investors may begin to exit riskier funds like PGP, as yield on safer investments, such as Treasury bills, will begin to be higher. Again, due to its large premium, PGP will probably suffer more than most and the drop could be steep. In the past month, as expectations for the first rate increase became more pronounced, PGP has suffered, down about 5% (excluding dividends). With the rate hike becoming more evident, I expect this decline to continue. Third, while PGP has traded at an ultra-high premium for quite some time, historically the fund has traded at NAV, or at a discount. It wasn’t until the depths of the of the financial crisis and the near zero interest rates in 2009 that PGP began to sell at a premium. Investors have irrationally bid up this fund to the point where owning it now sets up the investor for a very quick, steep drop in principle. When rates rise, I expect PGP to return to pre-recession valuations, which would mean a dramatic decrease in share price from where it stands today. Of course, avoiding PGP has risks of its own. The fund has traded at a premium successfully for years, and its high yield, along with capital appreciation, has rewarded investors handsomely. If Yellen announces that the Fed will yet again delay raising rates, or lays out a dovish stance for future increases in 2016, funds like PGP could rally, as that could indicate the low rate environment will be around for longer than anticipated. Additionally, PGP’s yield of almost 13% could be enough to entice investors to stay the course throughout 2016, even with rising rates. While rates rising seems to be an almost certainty, those rates will most likely still be at historically low levels. Investors may decide that the high yield and below investment grade credit sectors that compose PGP could be worth the risk. However, I expect the Fed to follow through with the December rate hike, and lay a groundwork for a few rate hikes in 2016. This albeit slow rate of increases will gradually steer investors out of high-yielding closed-end funds, and PGP should fall quicker than others. Bottom-line: PGP has paid a reliable, high-yield during a period of ultra-low interest rates, rewarding investors with high income during a time when such income was hard to come by. The fund has also performed strongly from its 2009 lows, more than doubling in share price. However, this performance has priced PGP well above NAV, and has shown itself prone to dramatic losses when the market gets rattled, such as on Friday. With volatility expected in the credit markets in the coming months as interest rates are set to rise, the risk-reward of PGP is just not there. While the yield is high, and PGP has proven to pay it reliably, there are other Pimco funds available with similar yields, that won’t expose investors to such a large potential loss in principle. Heading in to the new year, I would caution investors away from PGP at this time.

Does The Size Premium Apply To Countries?

Summary A size premium has been extensively documented in financial literature and some studies have reported a size premium at the country level as well. Portfolios constructed under max-country weight strategies have achieved higher returns and better risk-adjusted performance as measured by Sharpe ratios, albeit with higher volatilities, compared to the benchmark. Max-country weight strategy suggests a potential robust portfolio construction methodology that could provide diversification benefits and improve the portfolio’s risk-adjusted performance compared to the benchmark. Since 1981, the “size premium,” or the tendency for smaller-capitalization securities to outperform their larger-cap counterparts, has been extensively documented in financial literature in the United States. Some studies have extended this research and reported that the size effect applies for country indices as well. Gerstein Fisher conducted research on the relationship between aggregate country equity market capitalizations and country-level market index returns and explored how a market-cap weighted international portfolio can be improved by limiting the weight of larger countries, such as Japan and the United Kingdom, and redistributing weights to smaller countries. For our study, we examined a capitalization-weighted basket of developed-market country indices (excluding the US) that resembles the MSCI EAFE Index. We used this index as our benchmark, and have reported country component weights of this index in the right-most column of Exhibit 1. We then limited the maximum weight of any one country in the portfolio (ranging from a 10% cap to 15%) and re-distributed that weight to all other countries according to their market capitalizations. If, after the re-allocation, any country exceeded the maximum portfolio weight, we repeated the process and re-allocated the additional weights. Exhibit 1, which provides the average exposures of each country in the various country-capped portfolios, and the benchmark over the sample period from January 1997 to July 2015 shows that this process generally reduced the weight of the two largest countries, Japan and the United Kingdom, and added the most weight to the larger of the smaller countries – France, Germany, Switzerland and Australia – resulting in a more even distribution of country weights in the modified portfolio. (click to enlarge) Exhibit 2 reports the performance of our strategy on a cumulative and annualized basis relative to the benchmark; Exhibit 3 shows results on a cumulative basis over time. As shown in both of these exhibits, all of the capped approaches have achieved modestly better cumulative and annualized returns compared to the benchmark over the period from January 1997 to July 2015. Note that this outperformance is achieved with higher volatilities (as measured by annualized standard deviations). The highest volatility (18.45%) is observed for the portfolio applying a 10% country-weight limit and the lowest (17.92%) for the portfolio applying a 15% country-weight limit, compared to 17.14% for the benchmark. Despite the higher volatilities, all capped approaches delivered better risk-adjusted performance as measured by Sharpe ratios (ranging from 0.345 to 0.373), compared to the Sharpe ratio of the benchmark (0.304). (click to enlarge) (click to enlarge) Without further research, we can only speculate about what causes the “small country effect.” The higher return may be explained by the tilts towards the value factor: we have assigned greater-than-market weights to stocks with high fundamentals relative to price and less-than-market weights to stocks with low fundamentals relative to price at the country level in the form of country max limits since smaller countries tend to have higher growth potential and less expensive equity markets. For example, Japan, a country with a relatively low dividend yield, sees its weight in the country-capped portfolios decrease by a range of 9% to 14% with respect to the benchmark. There is a trade-off associated with tilting toward small countries, however, by using this technique. The increased volatilities indicate that small markets are riskier than larger ones. But the increase in volatility is limited since by applying a max-country weight strategy we limit the portfolio’s exposure to any single country, thus enhancing portfolio diversification and lowering concentration risk. Overall, a max-country weight strategy suggests a potential robust portfolio construction methodology that could improve the portfolio’s risk-adjusted performance, as shown by increased Sharpe ratios compared to the benchmark. For more detail and the full results of our study, we invite you to read our research paper, Country Size Premiums and Global Equity Portfolio Structure . Conclusion Our research points to a possible methodology to better structure a multi-country portfolio: varying allocations to different countries based on their equity market capitalizations. As we show, re-distributing some of the weight of larger countries to smaller countries can improve an international stock portfolio’s risk-adjusted performance.