Tag Archives: stocks

NYSE Crackdown On… You

Summary The NYSE thinks it knows what is good for you. It is going to ban a number of current trades. Some I like and others I don’t, but none should be banned. The NYSE vs. Traders The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: ICE ) did not like what you did in August. There was all kinds of nonsense what with the buying and selling and prices going this way and that the exchange plans on cracking down early next year. Specifically, it is concerned with “price swings”. It is not taking it any more. To that end, the exchange is banning a number of popular trading tactics starting early next year. Scapegoat #1: Stop Orders On August 24, 2015, there were some such price swings in securities including JPMorgan (NYSE: JPM ) and General Electric (NYSE: GE ). One of the first scapegoats was the “stop-loss order”. A stop order is an order to place a market order once a given price is reached. For example, someone could buy a share of GE at a $30 per share with the instruction to sell it at whatever price one can get if it first goes beneath $25. While fewer than 0.3% of NYSE trades are such orders, they were thought to compound the problems in August generally and the 24th in particular. I have never made a stop order. I am certain that I never will. If I want to sell something at $25 that currently costs $30 I would not buy it at $30. That ends my interest in making such orders. But I am delighted if other people want to. In fact, many of the things that would drive a given price down to people’s stop-losses are what might interest me in buying. My colleague Andrew Walker says that he looks for opportunities, “where no one else is looking or where everyone else is panicking”. If people want to sell because a price is lower, that is fine with me. I am grateful for the liquidity in just such circumstances. In short, I try to avoid panicking, but I am staunchly pro-panic. Scapegoat #2: Good Till Canceled Orders The NYSE’s second boogeyman is the good till canceled order. Unlike stop-losses which I never use, I always use good till canceled. The distinction of one trading day versus another is wholly arbitrary to me. Essentially, I am completely price-sensitive but time-insensitive. If I find something that is meaningfully undervalued, then I want to buy it and I will still want to buy it on Tuesday. Yes, I could keep re-typing the same offer each morning at 9:30 AM, but why? If your investing philosophy is as antithetical to mine on GTC orders as it is on stop-losses, then you should be delighted with my participation in the market. I am a liquidity provider to price-insensitive/time-sensitive traders who want to exploit momentum or candlesticks or whatever. The Real Solution You might be a fan or foe of these tactics (I use one of the two). But that is not the important point. If you don’t like using them, then don’t. If you think that someone using one or the other puts himself at a disadvantage, than take the other side of the trade. But what should the exchange do if they want rational, transparent, undistorted pricing? Nothing. Get out of the way. The best, fairest, fastest solution to getting good prices is allowing for bad prices. If a share trades of JPM or GE at $0.01 per share or $1,000,000 per share, then let the trade go through. Enforce all private contracts as they are, not as the probably should be. In the Great Depression, Herbert Hoover recalled Andrew Mellon’s advice, liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate… it will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people. In short, the solution to a high price is a high price and the solution to a low price is a low price. The worse thing that a government or exchange can do is to interfere with the market’s functioning so that prices are distorted. If they see an “unfair” price that is, to them, too high or too low and put a stop to it to protect one or the other party to the transaction, then they will discourage future market participants from correcting such anomalies. As for me, I buy or sell only when there is a price that is “wrong” and even “unfair”. My entire business is built around exploiting anomalies in the price system. Why would anyone ever want to pay a “right” or “fair” price? The provision of liquidity to the capital market requires the active participation of such exploitative characters. Is this selfish or unsavory? No. It is what allows people to rush out of the market if they are in a rush. It is what allows others to avoid risks that they are ill-suited to judge. It is what allows foundations and pensions and other important investors to provide for their beneficiaries when they need to. What is selfish and unsavory is when market participants demand a bailout. What they mean is that they want a do over at a price that they can live with. If they want a bailout, I am more than happy to offer a bailout as a market participant at a market price. I particularly like bailing out counterparties during maximum chaos and uncertainty. There is a perfectly functional, liquid market. Of course that is not what they mean. They do not necessarily like my price but instead want more money for themselves because they, er, um, just really want it. How is that not selfish? The market itself is the world’s fastest, most efficient and even ruthless regulator. People selling JPM or GE for $0.01 will have a whole lot less influence on markets in the subsequent days. People diligent enough to scour the markets for opportunities to buy during such opportunities will be enriched. They will increase their subsequent influence over the markets. They will motivate themselves and others to correct such mispricing in the future. The bureaucrats in the NYSE are too far away from the floor to realize that they are looking at a problem that is its own solution. Prices are supposed to swing. If you don’t like it, just let them swing and wait. If you do not distort the markets, they will swing back. Stability is a side effect of a freely functioning market, not something that can be achieved by artificial manipulation.

Choosing The ‘Best’ REIT ETF

Summary Over the past 8 years, REZ has outperformed the other REIT ETFs. REITs are generally more volatile than the S&P 500. REIT ETFs help diversify a S&P 500 focused portfolio but are highly correlated among themselves. As a retiree looking for income, I am a fan of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs). I own some individual REITs, but for diversification, I tend to gravitate to REIT funds, especially Closed-End Funds (CEFs) or Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs). In July, I wrote an article on how to choose the “best” REIT CEF and selected the Cohen and Steers REIT and Preferred Income Fund (NYSE: RNP ) as my favorite. This article focuses on selecting the “best” ETF and also compares the performance of these ETFs with RNP. There are many ways to define “best.” Some investors may use total return as a metric, but as a retiree, risk is as important to me as return. Therefore, I define “best” as the fund that provides the most reward for a given level of risk and I measure risk by the volatility. Please note that I am not advocating that this is the way everyone should define “best”; I am just saying that this is the definition that works for me. For those that have not read my previous articles, I will quickly summarize some of the characteristics of REITs. In 1960, Congress created a new type of security called REITs that allowed real estate investments to be traded as a stock. The objective of this landmark legislation was to provide a way for small investors to participate in the income from large scale real estate projects. A REIT is a company that specializes in real estate, either through properties or mortgages. There are two major types of REITs: Equity REITs purchase and operate real estate properties. Income usually comes through the collection of rents. About 90% of REITs are equity REITs. Mortgage REITs invest in mortgages or mortgage-backed securities. Income is generated primarily from the interest that is earned on mortgage loans. The risks and rewards associated with mortgage REITs are very different than those associated with equity REITs. This article will only consider equity REITs. One of the reasons REITs are so popular is that they receive special tax treatment, and as a result, are required to distribute at least 90% of their taxable income each year. This usually translates into relatively large yields. But because REITs must pay out 90% of their income, they rely on debt for growth. This means that REITs are sensitive to interest rates. If the interest rates rise, the cost of debt increases and the REITs have less money for business investment. However, rising rates usually imply increased economic activity, and as the economy expands, there is a higher demand for real estate, which is positive for REITs. The effect of higher rates depends on the type of real estate owned by the REIT. For example, if the real estate has tenants with short leases, interest rates would have less impact because the rents could be raised quickly. Among the real estate sectors, hotels generally have the shortest leases followed by (from short to long) apartments, industrial property, retail properties, and healthcare. There are currently 16 ETFs focused on equity REITs. To reduce the analysis space, I selected only the ETFs that met the following requirements: A history that goes back to 2007 (to see how the fund reacted during the 2008 bear market). Generally, REITs were devastated in 2008, but, like other equities, they have recovered strongly since 2009. A market cap of at least $100 million. An average daily trading volume of at least 50,000 shares. The 6 ETFs that passed the screen are summarized below. Vanguard REIT Index (NYSEARCA: VNQ ). This ETF was launched in 2004 and is the largest REIT ETF. It tracks the MSCI US REIT Index, which is a pure equity index. The fund has 145 holdings diversified across real estate sectors with retail being the largest constituent at 25% followed by residential (17%), specialized (14%), Office 14%, and health care (13%). Specialized REITs are companies or trusts that do not generate a majority of revenue from rental and lease operations, such as storage properties. VNQ holds a large percentage (40%) of medium cap firms and also has 19% in small cap holdings. The fund charges a low 0.12%, which is substantially less than most of its competitors. The fund yields 3.9%. iShares U.S. Real Estate (NYSEARCA: IYR ). This is the only ETF that holds REITs of all kinds including mortgage REITs and timber REITs. The fund has 119 holdings spread over commercial (44%), specialized (37%), and the residential (14%) sectors. The fund has an expense ratio of 0.43% and yield 3.7%. iShares Cohen & Steers REIT (NYSEARCA: ICF ). This ETF is highly concentrated, holding only 30 of the largest REITs. The strategy assumes that large REITs will be better able to weather downturns. The holdings are spread across the commercial (51%), specialized (28%), and the residential (21%) sectors. The expense ratio is 0.35% and the yield is 3.2%. SPDR DJ Wilshire REIT (NYSEARCA: RWR ) . This ETF tracks the Dow Jones US Select REIT index. The fund holds 95 REITs spread over the commercial (53%), specialized (27%), and residential (20%) sectors. The fund has an expense ratio of 0.25% and yields 3.2%. i Shares Residential Real Estate Capped (NYSEARCA: REZ ). This ETF is touted as a residential REIT fund but only about 47% of the holdings are residential REITs. The other 53% are primarily specialized REITs. The fund has 38 holding, has an expense ratio of 0.48% and yields 3.3%. S&P REIT Index (NYSEARCA: FRI ). This ETF covers a large portion of the US REIT market with 156 holdings spread over commercial (55%), specialized (28%) and residential (17%) sectors. The fund has one of the highest expense ratios at 0.50% and yield 2.6%. For comparison, I used the following CEF: Cohen and Steers REIT and Preferred Income Fund. This CEF sells for a discount of 17.6%, which is larger than its 5-year average discount of 9.9%. The portfolio consists of 203 holdings with 49% in REITs and 49% in preferred shares. The fund uses 26% leverage and has an expense ratio of 1.7%. The distribution is 8.4%, consisting primarily of income with about 40% return of capital over the past 9 months. I also included the following ETF to provide a comparison to the overall stock market. SPDR S&P 500 Trust ETF (NYSEARCA: SPY ). This ETF tracks the S&P 500 index and has an ultra-low expense ratio of 0.09%. It yields 2%. For the funds that met my criteria, I plotted the annualized rate of return in excess of the risk-free rate (called Excess Mu on the charts) versus the volatility for each fund. This data is shown in Figure 1. The risk-free rate was assumed to be zero to make comparisons easier. (click to enlarge) Figure 1. Risk versus reward over bear-bull cycle Figure 1 illustrates that REIT funds have had a large range of returns and volatilities. To better assess the relative performance of these funds, I calculated the Sharpe Ratio. The Sharpe Ratio is a metric, developed by Nobel laureate William Sharpe that measures risk-adjusted performance. It is calculated as the ratio of the excess return over the volatility. This reward-to-risk ratio (assuming that risk is measured by volatility) is a good way to compare peers to assess if higher returns are due to superior investment performance or from taking additional risk. In Figure 1, I plotted a red line that represents the Sharpe Ratio associated with RNP. If an asset is above the line, it has a higher Sharpe Ratio than RNP. Conversely, if an asset is below the line, the reward-to-risk is worse than RNP. Some interesting observations are evident from the figure. REIT performance is tightly bunched in the risk versus reward space with similar volatilities and performances. All the REITs were significantly more volatile than the S&P 500 but also delivered more total return. RNP was among the top performers illustrating that this CEF did as well or better than most ETFs. Cohen and Steers manages both RNP and ICF. RNP performed better than ICF, likely due to the use of leverage. REZ was the best performer on a risk-adjusted basis followed closely by VNQ and RWR. FRI was the least volatile ETF and ICF was the most volatile. FRI and IYR lagged in terms of risk-adjusted performance. One of the reasons often touted for owning REITs is the diversification they provide. To be “diversified,” you want to choose assets such that when some assets are down, others are up. In mathematical terms, you want to select assets that are uncorrelated (or at least not highly correlated) with each other. To assess the degree of diversification, I calculated the pair-wise correlations associated with the REIT funds. The results are provided as a correlation matrix in Figure 2. (click to enlarge) Figure 2. Correlation matrix over bear-bull cycle As is apparent from the matrix, REITs did provide a fair amount of portfolio diversification for an equity based portfolio and a CEF based portfolio . However, the REIT ETFs were generally highly correlated with one another. This is not surprising since the number of REITs is relatively small and the ETF portfolios have substantial overlap. Thus, you do not receive much diversification by purchasing more than one of the ETF funds. Next, I looked at the past 5-year period to see if the REIT performance had significantly changed. The results are shown in Figure 3. The performances were tightly bunched, but RNP and REZ were still the best performers. IYR continued to lag. You should also note that with the 2008 bear market removed from the analysis, volatilities were substantially reduced. In fact, over the past 5 years, REIT ETFs were only slightly more volatile than the S&P 500. (click to enlarge) Figure 3. Risk versus reward over past 5 years Continuing the analysis, I re-ran the analysis over the past 3 years and the results are shown in Figure 4. During this period I was able to add the following ETF to the mix. Schwab US REIT (NYSEARCA: SCHH ). This ETF has the lowest expense ratio (0.07%) of any REIT fund. The fund tracks the same index as RWR but has a much smaller expense ratio. The fund holds 95 REITs spread over the commercial (53%), specialized (27%), and residential (20%) sectors. The fund yields 3.2%. Over this period, all the REIT funds were again tightly bunched, without a large variation in either return or volatility. For the past 3 years, the ETFs slightly outperformed RNP on a risk-adjusted basis. All the REITs performed significantly poorer than SPY over the period. (click to enlarge) Figure 4. Risk versus reward over past 3 years Finally, I looked at the past 12 months (Figure 5). What a difference a couple of years made. REZ continued to be the best performer, followed by ICF, and then SCHH and RWR. RNP had similar performance to SCHH. It is interesting to note that ICH outperformed RNP, illustrating that leverage does not always increase total return. Most of the REIT funds outperformed SPY over the past year. The popular IYR fund lagged during the period. (click to enlarge) Figure 5. Risk versus reward over past 12 months Bottom Line The performance of REIT ETFs depends on the time period analyzed. During some periods, REITs outperformed SPY but lagged in other periods. RNP (the reference CEF) held it own against ETFs, usually being among the top performers on a risk-adjusted basis. In terms of ETFs, REZ was clearly the best performer in all time frames analyzed. Since REIT ETFs are highly correlated with one another, you do not receive significant diversification by purchasing more than one. If you decide to invest in this asset class, I would recommend REZ.

Market Lab Report – Premarket Pulse 11/23/15

Over the weekend, we sent out the weekly report to members that covered our views on actionable stocks emailed to members for this past week.   Major averages rose on mixed volume, a surprising occurrence as Friday was triple witching day when volumes are usually exaggerated. Incidentally, from here until the end of the year, the S&P 500 has always been up since 2003. Of course, keep in mind these are not “normal” times so even such good odds can be broken. Oil and the Commodity Research Bureau (CRB) Index are closing in on multi-year lows putting pressure on European markets. Futures are currently trading lower. CME FedWatch puts the odds at 74% that the Fed will hike rates when it meets in December. Meanwhile, the European Central Bank is expected to ease further this week. So as has been characteristic for this year, crosscurrents prevail making for a trendless, rip-tide environment in the major averages. Still, profit opportunities have presented in stocks provided one stay disciplined by taking profits in context with the stock’s chart and general market while keeping stops tight.