Tag Archives: stocks

HACK Or CIBR? Choosing A Cybersecurity ETF

Summary HACK is the more expensive fund, with greater liquidity and more of a pure play portfolio. CIBR is the cheaper fund with greater exposure to larger companies, resulting in slightly less volatility. HACK and CIBR have proven to be considerably more volatile than the broader technology sector. High-profile data breaches have affected companies like Ashley Madison, Sony (NYSE: SNE ), Starbucks (NASDAQ: SBUX ) and Target (NYSE: TGT ). There have also been reports of cyberattacks against government agencies, including the Department of Defense. Organizations around the world are stepping up their efforts to update their protocols and technology to restrict unauthorized intrusions and the theft of sensitive information. As a result, analysts expect spending on cybersecurity to be a growing line item for all manner of organizations. This has led to increased interest in cybersecurity-related stocks and in 2015, cybersecurity stocks had produced some of the market’s best year-to-date returns before the August sell-off. Rather than trying to single out individual firms, two exchange-traded funds, the PureFunds ISE Cyber Security ETF (NYSEARCA: HACK ) and the First Trust Nasdaq CEA Cybersecurity ETF (NASDAQ: CIBR ), offer investors broad exposure and diversification across this niche in the information technology industry. PureFunds ISE Cyber Security Established in November 2014, HACK was the first ETF created to track the cybersecurity industry. The fund’s goal is to provide investment returns that generally correspond to those of the ISE Cyber Security Index before fees and expenses. The index tracks the performance of domestic and international companies that provide cybersecurity or for which cybersecurity is a key driver in their overall business model. The $1.29 billion fund has a 71.5 percent exposure to domestic stocks and a 28.5 percent allocation to foreign securities, mainly Greater Europe and the Middle East. The fund’s largest exposure is to mid-, small- and micro-cap companies. First Trust Nasdaq CEA Cybersecurity The First Trust Nasdaq CEA Cybersecurity ETF began trading on July 7, 2015. CIBR seeks to replicate the performance, before fees and expenses, of the Nasdaq CEA Cybersecurity Index. The benchmark index includes common stocks and depository receipts of companies classified as engaging in cybersecurity according to the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA). The fund intends to hold a position in each security contained within the index. CIBR has a 28 percent allocation to large cap stock as well as a 38 percent allocation to mid-cap and 22 percent exposure to small-cap stocks. CIBR has a 67 percent exposure to domestic securities and a 33 percent exposure to foreign issues, mainly the United Kingdom, the Middle East and Emerging Asia. Fund Differences Although the funds have similar goals, there are differences between the two ETFs. These subtle nuances may result in one fund, rather than the other, being more suitable for your individual portfolio. The first difference is the construction of their underlying benchmark indices. HACK utilizes the ISE Cyber Security Index as its benchmark. This index focuses on companies that develop hardware and software for safeguarding networks, websites and files. CIBR tracks the Nasdaq CEA Cybersecurity Index, which includes companies engaged in building, implementing and managing security protocols for public and private networks, computers and mobile devices. While the indices are similar, they differ in the size of the companies held within the portfolio, their market liquidity and the manner in which the index is weighted. CIBR has a market cap minimum of $250 million and an average three-month trading volume of $1 million. HACK lowers the market cap requirement to $100 million and does not have a trading minimum. While the ISE Cyber Security Index of HACK uses a modified equal weighting methodology, the Nasdaq CEA Cybersecurity Index backing CIBR utilizes a modified liquidity-weighted technique. The result of these differences is HACK has more assets in smaller companies that are more easily categorized as pure plays in the industry. This focus creates the potential for higher volatility and risk associated with owning small and micro-cap stocks. A second difference is portfolio composition. The top five holdings for HACK are Fortinet (NASDAQ: FTNT ), Imperva (NYSE: IMPV ), Trend Micro ( OTCPK:TMICY ), Proofpoint (NASDAQ: PFPT ) and Juniper Networks (NYSE: JNPR ). CIBR’s top holdings include Qihoo 360 (NYSE: QIHU ), Palo Alto Networks (NYSE: PANW ), Cisco (NASDAQ: CSCO ), FireEye (NASDAQ: FEYE ) and NXP Semiconductors (NASDAQ: NXPI ). With a heavier tilt towards software names, HACK is more of a pure play. Overall, HACK has a little over 10 percent of its portfolio in stocks not held in CIBR, while CIBR has about a third of its holdings in stocks not held by HACK. Beyond owning a more differentiated portfolio, CIBR is a bit more diversified since it has more individual holdings within its portfolio. Due to the size of the industry and the companies available for investment, both funds also hold some large caps to fill out their portfolios. As a result, both funds hold large caps such as Cisco Systems and Juniper Networks that are not pure plays on cybersecurity. CIBR doesn’t have a long history and has tracked closely with HACK since inception. Since the inception of HACK, it has outperformed the Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF (NYSEARCA: XLK ), 0.60 percent gain versus a 2.10 percent loss for XLK through September 30, but it comes with a high degree of volatility. In September, XLK fell 1.4 percent, but HACK and CIBR fell 6.9 percent and 3.6 percent, respectively. Since the inception of CIBR in July 2015, XLK is down 1.7 percent, versus a 15 percent drop in HACK and a 12.5 percent decline in CIBR. The recent negative returns may be a reflection of the downturn in the overall market rather than the cybersecurity industry, but it reflects the type of volatility investors can expect. The chart below shows XLK in black. The red line shows the price ratio of HACK versus XLK (a rising line indicates outperformance), while the blue line shows the price ratio of HACK versus CIBR. (click to enlarge) With a short history, one cannot make a long-term prediction about relative performance, but to date, the funds are behaving as expected given their construction. When the technology sector is rising, HACK outperforms XLK. When the technology sector is falling, HACK and CIBR underperformed. HACK also underperformed CIBR when the technology sector declined. Outlook HACK’s emphasis on smaller, faster-growing firms makes it more of a pure play on this market niche. Smaller cap stocks often provide better returns during bull markets and worse returns during a bear market and thus far, performance has been as expected. Investors in cybersecurity stocks can look forward to a roller coaster ride, but HACK will likely deliver bigger gains and losses. By concentrating on larger companies due to stricter liquidity requirements, and greater diversification, CIBR focuses on more established names that may make the ETF better suited for more conservative investors – although even CIBR will be far more volatile than the average technology fund. With an expense ratio of 0.60 percent, CIBR also has a lower cost than the 0.75 percent expense ratio of HACK. Weighing the two options, HACK is the better choice for aggressive investors looking for as much pure play exposure as possible as well as more short-term oriented trades. CIBR would be a little better fit for an investor looking to shift some technology exposure into cybersecurity, if only for the lower expense ratio compared to HACK. Both funds have more than adequate daily volume, but HACK has more than 10 times the daily dollar volume of CIBR, making it the more liquid option for large investors.

ITC Holdings: For Regulatory Risk-Averse Utility Investors

ITC Holdings is the largest independent FERC-regulated transmission utility with interesting growth opportunities. Even with the potential for lower allowed return on equity, ITC Holdings should generate 20% higher income per investment dollar compared to average state-regulated investments. The current share weakness has caused historical premium valuations to evaporate, creating a great long-term entry point. Morningstar has an interesting take on ITC Holdings (NYSE: ITC ). One key element of utility investing is the relationship between a specific utility’s geographic location and the regulatory environment in which it operates. Nowhere is this relationship more obvious than the current stand-off playing out in state regulatory offices across the country between distributed generation with rooftop solar and its impact on the base-load power generation profile of a specific utility. According to its fact sheet , ITC is an electric transmission company with a federally regulated rate base of $5.2 billion. The Federal Energy Regulatory Agency, FERC, is the rate-setting body for interstate transmission assets, and oversees 100% of ITC’s regulated revenues. ITC is the largest publicly traded transmission company, and operates one of the leading networks with 15,600 miles of high-voltage lines. This differentiator makes the company a unique player in the regulated utility sector. At the core of its lower risk are the higher allowed returns offered by the FERC versus the average state-regulated return on equity ROE. In an effort to draw needed investment capital to expand and upgrade the grid, the FERC has allowed a higher return on equity than the states, on average, have allowed. For instance, since going public in 2005, ITC’s FERC-allowed ROE has fluctuated between 12.1% and 13.8%, while the average state-regulated allowed ROE has been falling. The chart below from Edison Electric Institute plots the average awarded allowed ROE as of June 30, 2015, by quarter. As shown, the average state public utility commission PUC-approved ROE is substantially below those allowed for ITC’s equity investment. The most recent quarterly average from the EEI chart is a 9.73% ROE. The current rate mechanism approved by the FERC allows various ITC subsidiaries to earn the following ROE: ITC Transmission, 13.88%; METC, 13.38%; ITC Midwest, 12.38%; and ITC Great Plains, 12.16%. A comparison of federal versus state regulation is addressed in the most recent investor presentation PDF. The slide below outlines a few of the basic differences: (click to enlarge) Last year, Northeast consumer groups petitioned the FERC to lower its allowed ROE, and after a divisive skirmish, the FERC relented and is reducing allowed returns. The new rate approved for ISO New England transmission assets for ITC should be 11.7%, including a premium allowed for being an independent company. The FERC is under pressure to institute this rate across the country. Even with the potential lower rate, ITC could earn 20% more income from the same investment dollars compared to the most recent average state-approved ROE. This differential is the backbone of the company’s lower risk. From Morningstar’s analysis : “In our opinion, FERC’s formula rate-setting methodology is the most stable and least subject to political influence of any utility regulation in the United States. Therefore, we believe there is little risk of adverse regulatory decisions that would result in allowed returns below the average 10% state-level utilities returns or modify FERC’s favorable regulatory framework. This favorable regulatory framework covers 100% of ITC’s revenue and provides predictable earnings and cash flow. We believe the reduced risk associated with FERC regulation results in a lower average cost of capital than the typical utility.” Recently, its share price has been falling with the rest of the sector. The utility average peaked in January, and has fallen 15% since. ITC peaked in January as well, and has fallen 26% from $44 to its current $32.50. ITC stock has lost a bit of its love from analysts, with the current recommendations being two “Sell,” five “Neutral” and two “Buy.” The concern is based on the reduced ROE potential. However, ITC’s aggressive capital expenditure budget should partially offset lower ROE, driving earnings ahead by 8-12%. Currently, the company is forecast to invest $757 million this year, $852 million next and $818 million in 2017. Over the next three years, ITC’s regulated asset base could grow by over $2.2 billion. This capital expansion will be financed by $1.14 billion in new debt and the balance from internally generated funds. The company generates over $500 million in operating cash flow and pays out $100 million in dividends. Speaking of dividends, ITC recently raised its dividend by 14%, and the payout ratio remains well below the industry average at 38%. Utilities are generally considered to have a low payout ratio if it is below a 60% threshold. Earnings growth is expected to decline a bit to the 8-11% range. However, with a low payout ratio, the company’s dividends could continue to increase substantially above its EPS trend and still be below that of its peers. In an interview with the trade publication TransmissionHub , ITC management discusses two interesting expansion plans. It is proposing the first ever bi-directional connector from Ontario, Canada directly into the PJM grid at Erie, PA. The project is called the Lake Erie Connector, and the high-voltage cable connection would include 73 miles of underwater installation. The project is currently out for bids to potential customers and, if approved, the Lake Erie Connector could cost $1 billion. The second expansion opportunity is a joint venture with NRG Energy (NYSE: NRG ) and a private equity firm to rescue the Puerto Rican electric utility, Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority PREPA. After years of mismanagement, PREPA is on the verge of bankruptcy, driven partially by the need for capital expenditures to upgrade aging power plants to meet new environmental standards. Some generating plants are over 50 years in age and fail miserably in their pollution profile. An article published in Puerto Rico’s main business magazine, Caribbean Business , outlines the $3.3 billion proposed project: “The $3 billion investment would be used to expand PREPA’s existing liquefied natural gas-delivery infrastructure (in the range of $200 million); to bring online new combined-cycle, natural gas-turbine (CCGT) power generation and repower existing PREPA generation (1,200 to 1,500 megawatts [MW]) with investment ranging from $1.5 billion to $1.8 billion, and new renewable generation through solar power (300 to 400 MW) costing nearly $1 billion. The truth is that the coalition brings together three entities that could give PREPA a fighting chance to revitalize its obsolete infrastructure. York Capital, backed by more than $26 billion in assets, has vast experience in restructuring distressed assets; NRG Energy, a $33 billion energy company operates the largest conventional- and renewable-power generation portfolio in the mainland U.S.; and ITC Holdings is the nation’s largest independent electric-transmission company.” Morningstar, as usual, outlines the bull and bear case very succinctly for ITC: “Bulls say: ITC increased its annual dividend by 14% in 2014 and we expect annual increases to average close to 13% during the next five years. MISO expects capacity shortfalls, where the majority of ITC’s assets are located. The generation replacing the coal, mostly natural gas and wind, will require changes to the transmission grid providing substantial new investment opportunity for ITC. Management’s focus on high-voltage electricity transmission should result in better operating efficiency compared with integrated utilities that also have generation and distribution assets. Bears Say: An industrial group has asked FERC to cut ITC’s base allowed return on equity in MISO to 9.15% from 12.38%. An unfavorable outcome would result in lower allowed returns and dividend growth for ITC. ITC Great Plains and ITC Midwest have several competitors proposing transmission system development to move wind power from the Dakotas and Kansas east to load centers. Competition could limit growth opportunities. Several traditional regulated utilities have initiated plans to expand existing transmission or build new lines creating increased competition for ITC.” Below is a F.A.S.T. Graph for ITC going back to its IPO in 2005. Notice both the year-end dividend yield (red line) and the historical P/E (blue line). (click to enlarge) S&P Capital IQ offers a Quality rating for stocks trading longer than 10 years. ITC recently qualified for this evaluation, based on its 10-year history of generating earnings and dividend growth, two important criteria for dividend and utility investors. Company management has generated sufficient consistent growth to qualify for an A+ rating, which is reserved for only about 45 of the 4500 companies followed by S&P. Utility investors looking for a growth stock with high dividend growth potential and a lower regulatory risk profile should review ITC. With the current share price weakness, the company’s historical valuation premium has been reduced to virtually zero, as ITC trades in line with its slower-growth, state-regulated peers at a P/E of 15, when its historical P/E is in the 23 range. In addition, the company has not offered a 2.7% yield since year-end 2008. Now would be a great time to either institute a position or to add to an existing one. Author’s Note: Please review disclosure in author’s profile.

IBB: Price Gouging Assertion Is Overblown

Summary Price gouging by Turing Pharmaceuticals and the subsequent comments by Hillary Clinton have exacerbated this sector decline. This price gouging incident has elicited widespread backlash, and in my opinion, rightfully so; however, this criticism has been unfairly painted across the entire sector. Attempts to heavy regulate the sector with government intervention will likely end in a futile effort in arresting drug price increases. The unprecedented secular growth streak in biotech has been more than tested as of late with the biotechnology officially in bear territory. IBB is down 25% from its 52-week high, from $400 to $295 per share during the recent market weakness, presenting a potential buying opportunity. Price gouging assertion and Hilary Clinton Recently, Turing Pharmaceuticals and its CEO Martin Shkreli garnered criticism after the company boosted the price of Daraprim from $13.50 to $750 per pill, resulting in a greater than 5,400% increase after acquiring the drug in August. This price gouging of a decades’ old drug drew fire from the general public on social media, and in particular, the presidential candidate and democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton (Figure 1). Figure 1 – Tweet by presidential candidate and democratic front runner Hillary Clinton referring to the drug price gouging This price gouging incident has elicited widespread backlash, and in my opinion, rightfully so; however, this criticism has been unfairly painted across the entire sector. It’s noteworthy to point out that democratic lawmakers have requested pricing policies and further information on pricing of drugs by Canadian drug marker Valeant Pharmaceuticals (NYSE: VRX ). Despite the public backlash and public statements by lawmakers, I believe this is a temporary headwind rooted in the public relations arena. Although the aforementioned example of Daraprim is an isolated and extreme example, at the end of the day, these companies are in business to make a profit, retain fiduciary responsibilities and return value to shareholders. Many contend that these prices are not sustainable, and the cost to the overall healthcare system is a huge financial burden. Qualitatively, this is true; however, this situation draws parallels to the housing market, education costs and social security. All of these areas of our economy are facing similar fates with unsustainable financial barriers to entry and unfunded liabilities. Attempts to heavy regulate the sector with government intervention will likely end in a futile effort in arresting drug price increases for the following terse reasons: 1) Companies spend billions of dollars in acquiring a company and/or billions of dollars and years of research and development costs to bring a given therapy to the market. 2) These costs must be reasonably factored into the pricing of the product. If government intervention is successful, this will hinder innovation and M&A activity since the back-end reward will no longer generate lucrative rewards. 3) Unlike education costs, housing price increases and social security, drug pricing is negotiated with many insurers and organizations that dispense drugs at a substantial discount to the market price and often along with rebate programs. 4) Loss of exclusivity; drug companies must also capitalize on their window of exclusivity to their drugs. Depending on patent expiration, after varying time on the market, patents will inevitably expire, and these drugs will no longer possess exclusivity and face generic competition. 5) Taken together in concert with the fact that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is now law of the land, no one will be paying the market price of any drug since the annual deductible and maximum out-of-pocket is established depending on the tier of coverage he/she chooses. 6) Lastly, an often overlooked benefit is the cost savings to the overall healthcare system. This occurs when curative drugs or drugs that increase the overall survival and/or improve the quality of life are introduced to the market. These highly effective drugs can effectively remove patients from the system whereby eliminating years of high-cost medical treatment and hospitalization. While drug prices continue to rise, there’s substantive rational in the form of input costs, loss of exclusivity, curative treatments, increase in quality of life and removal of some patients from the overall healthcare system, thus reducing the overall cost burden of the given healthcare system. For the reasons stated above, I personally feel that these attempts by lawmakers will end in a futile endeavor. Overview The culmination of extraneous events such as sustained lower oil prices, an ostensibly imminent rate hike and weakness in China have indiscriminately plummeted the biotech sector in lock-step with the broader indices. Now, a second and more specific wave of sector-related stories such as price gouging by Turing Pharmaceuticals and the subsequent comments by Hillary Clinton has exacerbated this sector decline. These former events are ostensibly unrelated to the biotechnology sector; yet, this group has been taken along for the downhill ride with the broader indices. The latter events have been detrimental to all biotechnology stocks as this is a direct threat to pricing power and our capitalism-based structure. The unprecedented secular growth streak in biotech has been more than tested as of late with the biotechnology officially in bear territory. These latest events, some unrelated and others directly related to the biotech sector, may provide a unique opportunity to add to a current position or initiate a position over time as this correction continues to unfold. Based on annual and cumulative performance throughout both bear and bull markets, the iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF (NASDAQ: IBB ) may provide the opportunity investors have been waiting for in the face of our current market conditions. IBB is down 25% from its 52-week high, shares have plunged from $400 to $295 per share during the recent market weakness, presenting a potential buying opportunity. Debunking the bubble thesis Many content that this sector is in bubble territory based on its overall high P/E ratio, lack of adequate cash flows, and in some cases, lack of any marketable products. Thus, many companies are not deserving of this generous P/E. Many also try to draw parallels to the dot.com bubble that occurred in the early 2000s and use this as a proxy for the current biotech “bubble”. I would counter that after the most recent correction of ~25% this narrative holds much less weight and that traditional metrics on which to evaluate stocks are not applicable when evaluating clinical-stage biotech companies. Clinical-stage biotech companies are solely evaluated and priced based on potential sales of pipeline candidates and/or valuation to a potential acquirer. Holding clinical-stage biotech companies to the same standards as a traditional Dow Jones stock isn’t appropriate, and thus, I feel that this argument is flawed. Comparison to the dot.com bubble is not an accurate proxy either as the Internet companies relied heavily on user growth, subscribers, ad revenue and crowd-sourced content. This is in sharp contrast to biotech companies that innovate in the many different disease states and may have a multi-billion life-saving blockbuster drug around the corner to drastically change the trajectory of the company and its future. Additionally, major M&A activity has always been a driving factor in this sector due to the fact that companies are willing to pay very high premiums for the rights to potential blockbusters or a robust pipeline to replenish its own outdated pipeline. Taken together, I feel that after the recent sell-off and lack of any substantive argument against the biotech sector, this may be a great entry point. Perennial performer in bear and bull markets Despite the headwinds outlined above, the biotech sector has exhibited its resilience in both bear and bull markets with secular growth over the past decade. The returns for IBB have been very impressive in both annual and cumulative performance, unparalleled by any major index. Over the past 10- and 5-year time frames, IBB has posted cumulative returns of over 310% and 265%, respectively. These results are unrivaled by any major index, outperforming on a 10-year cumulative basis by 3-fold or greater when compared to the S&P 500, NASDAQ, and Dow Jones (Figure 2). These returns are accentuated during the previous 5 years. IBB notched cumulative returns of 265%, outperforming the S&P 500, NASDAQ and Dow Jones by roughly 2.5-fold or greater over this 5-year time frame (Figure 3). (click to enlarge) Figure 2 – Google Finance; comparison of IBB returns relative to the S&P 500, NASDAQ, Dow Jones over the previous 10 years (click to enlarge) Figure 3 – Google Finance; comparison of IBB returns relative to the S&P 500, NASDAQ, Dow Jones over the previous 5 years IBB has displayed impressive resilience in the face of the market crash in 2008, the bear markets of 2011 and the choppy market thus far in 2015. During the market crash of 2008, IBB posted an annual return of -12.2% while the S&P 500, NASDAQ and Dow Jones posted returns of -37.0%, -40.0% and -31.9%, respectively (Figure 3). During the bear market of 2011, IBB posted an annual return of 11.7% while the S&P 500, NASDAQ and Dow Jones posted returns of 2.1%, -0.8% and 8.4%, respectively (Figure 4). Thus far, during the choppy market of 2015, IBB posted an annual return of 4% while the S&P 500, NASDAQ and Dow Jones posted returns of -6.3%, -1.4% and -8.6%, respectively (Figure 5). These data suggest that IBB outperforms during bear markets as well as bull markets to establish itself as a secular growth sector. (click to enlarge) Figure 4 – Morningstar comparison of IBB’s annual returns relative to the NASDAQ over the previous 10 years (click to enlarge) Figure 5 – Google Finance; comparison of IBB’s annual performance thus far in 2015 relative to the S&P 500, NASDAQ and Dow Jones Conclusion As the confluence of broader disconnected factors and price gouging inquiries by leading politicians continue to bring down the biotechnology sector, it may be time to consider capitalizing on this correction via adding to existing positions or initiating a new position in this cohort given this opportunity. As the United States continues to absorb an ageing population alongside growing overall healthcare costs, more specifically prescription drug costs, the biotech sector looks poised to benefit and continue to outperform the broader market. Data suggests, provided a long-term position that volatility within the biotech sector is negated by its long-term performance that is unparalleled by any major index. This sector provides high returns unrivaled by any major index with moderate risk (based on its resilience during the bear markets of 2008 and 2011 and thus far in 2015) and volatility. IBB may be providing investors with a great opportunity to add or initiate a position for any long portfolio desiring exposure to the biotechnology sector with a long-term time horizon given the recent market conditions. Disclosure The author currently holds shares of IBB and is long IBB. The author has no business relationship with any companies mentioned in this article. I am not a professional financial advisor or tax professional. I wrote this article myself and it reflects my own thoughts and opinions. This article is not intended to be a recommendation to buy or sell any stock or ETF mentioned. I am an individual investor who analyzes investment strategies and disseminates my analyses. I encourage all investors to conduct their own research and due diligence prior to investing. Please feel free to comment and provide feedback, I value all responses.