Tag Archives: transactionname

Concerned About Rising Interest Rates? Consider These 4 Alternative Investments

Summary Certain types of alternative investments are well suited to help prepare portfolios for rising interest rates in the future, while also potentially adding value in the present. We highlight senior loan, unconstrained bond, market neutral and global macro strategies. Looking past traditional stocks and bonds may help prepare portfolios for a future rise in rates By Walter Davis, Alternatives Investment Strategist As I travel across the country meeting with financial advisors and their clients, a common concern I hear voiced is “how can I position my portfolio for when the inevitable happens and interest rates start to rise?” In response, I state that certain types of alternative investments are well suited to help prepare portfolios for rising interest rates in the future, while also potentially adding value in the present. Specifically, I highlight four different types of alternatives for clients to consider: Senior loans (also known as bank loans, senior secured loans and/or leveraged loans) – Senior loans are loans made by banks to non-investment grade companies, commonly in relation to leveraged buyouts, mergers and acquisitions. The loans are called “senior” because they are contractually senior to other debt and equity, and are typically secured by collateral. Given that the loans are made to non-investment grade companies, the yield associated with them tends to be higher than on investment grade corporate bonds. 1 For example, as of the end of May, senior loans were yielding 5.51% versus a yield of 2.99% on investment grade corporate bonds. 2 Another key aspect of senior loans is that the interest rate paid is a floating rate that resets every 30 to 90 days. 3 This means that in a rising interest rate environment, as long as the rate rises above a predetermined minimum level, the investor will receive increased payments from the borrower. Therefore, senior loans may potentially outperform other types of bonds in rising rate environments due to their floating rates. Unconstrained bond funds – Unconstrained bond funds are funds in which the portfolio manager is given the flexibility to invest globally across all sectors of the fixed income markets. The manager also may use derivatives, leverage and shorting when implementing his or her strategy. Given the tools made available to the manager, unconstrained bond funds tend to have an absolute return orientation, meaning that they may seek to generate a positive return in any market environment. In a rising interest environment, an unconstrained bond fund has the ability to take advantage of rising rates by utilizing a number of derivative strategies. One such strategy would be to short Treasury bond futures. Treasury bond futures mimic the returns of Treasuries, which are negatively impacted by rising rates. Therefore, by shorting Treasury futures you would gain when interest rates rise. Furthermore, such funds have the ability to avoid regions and sectors that they do not find attractive while focusing on the regions and sectors they believe offer the best potential for success. In general, investors should expect unconstrained bond funds to potentially outperform traditional bond funds in down bond markets, and to possibly underperform traditional bond funds in rising bond markets. Market neutral funds – Market neutral funds seek to generate positive returns regardless of market environment by trading related stocks on a long and short basis. Such funds are designed to cushion a portfolio against broad market swings. Although market neutral funds invest in equities, many of these funds are designed to generate returns that are bond like, both in terms of the level of return and the volatility associated with the return. That said, investors considering market neutral funds should be aware that such funds, unlike traditional bond funds, do not generate current yield, and that they can experience more severe declines than traditional bond funds. Global macro funds – Global macro funds are funds that invest across the global markets in equities, fixed income, currencies and commodities on a long and short basis. As a result, these funds tend to be very opportunistic in their investment approach. When interest rates begin to rise, the fallout is likely to be felt across the global markets. Given the markets traded and their opportunistic nature, global macro funds have the potential to thrive in a rising interest rate environment. Read more about alternative investing from Walter Davis. References This is due to the increased credit risk associated with non-investment grade companies relative to investment grade companies. Bloomberg L.P. as of May 31, 2015. Corporate bonds are represented by a subset of the Barclays US Aggregate Bond Index, and senior loans are represented by the S&P/LSTA Leveraged Loan Index. Senior loans are usually priced relative to three-month LIBOR, with the lender receiving a fixed spread above the LIBOR rate. Therefore as LIBOR rises, the amount paid by the borrower increases. Importantly, most loans have a provision that establishes a minimum, or floor, for LIBOR. Typically the floor rate is around 1.00%. This helps protect the lender should LIBOR fall below 1.00%. Currently, the three-month LIBOR rate is approximately 0.28%. Due to the floor, LIBOR would need to rise above the 1.00% floor before the investor would receive the benefit of rising interest rates. Important information The Barclays US Aggregate Bond Index is an unmanaged index considered representative of the US investment-grade, fixed-rate bond market. The S&P/LSTA Leveraged Loan Index is a weekly total return index that tracks the current outstanding balance and spread over Libor for fully funded term loans. An investment cannot be made in an index. Past performance cannot guarantee future results. Alternative products typically hold more non-traditional investments and employ more complex trading strategies, including hedging and leveraging through derivatives, short selling and opportunistic strategies that change with market conditions. Investors considering alternatives should be aware of their unique characteristics and additional risks from the strategies they use. Like all investments, performance will fluctuate. You can lose money. Derivatives may be more volatile and less liquid than traditional investments and are subject to market, interest rate, credit, leverage, counterparty and management risks. An investment in a derivative could lose more than the cash amount invested. Fixed-income investments are subject to credit risk of the issuer and the effects of changing interest rates. Interest rate risk refers to the risk that bond prices generally fall as interest rates rise and vice versa. An issuer may be unable to meet interest and/or principal payments, thereby causing its instruments to decrease in value and lowering the issuer’s credit rating. Most senior loans are made to corporations with below investment-grade credit ratings and are subject to significant credit, valuation and liquidity risk. The value of the collateral securing a loan may not be sufficient to cover the amount owed, may be found invalid or may be used to pay other outstanding obligations of the borrower under applicable law. There is also the risk that the collateral may be difficult to liquidate, or that a majority of the collateral may be illiquid. Short sales may cause an investor to repurchase a security at a higher price, causing a loss. As there is no limit on how much the price of the security can increase, exposure to potential loss is unlimited. The information provided is for educational purposes only and does not constitute a recommendation of the suitability of any investment strategy for a particular investor. Invesco does not provide tax advice. The tax information contained herein is general and is not exhaustive by nature. Federal and state tax laws are complex and constantly changing. Investors should always consult their own legal or tax professional for information concerning their individual situation. The opinions expressed are those of the authors, are based on current market conditions and are subject to change without notice. These opinions may differ from those of other Invesco investment professionals. Before investing, carefully read the prospectus and/or summary prospectus and carefully consider the investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. For this and more complete information about the products, visit invesco.com/fundprospectus for a prospectus/summary prospectus. NOT FDIC INSURED MAY LOSE VALUE NO BANK GUARANTEE All data provided by Invesco unless otherwise noted. Invesco Distributors, Inc. is the US distributor for Invesco Ltd.’s retail products and collective trust funds. Invesco Advisers, Inc. and other affiliated investment advisers mentioned provide investment advisory services and do not sell securities. Invesco Unit Investment Trusts are distributed by the sponsor, Invesco Capital Markets, Inc., and broker-dealers including Invesco Distributors, Inc. PowerShares® is a registered trademark of Invesco PowerShares Capital Management LLC (Invesco PowerShares). Each entity is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Invesco Ltd. ©2015 Invesco Ltd. All rights reserved. Concerned About Rising Interest Rates? Consider These Four Alternative Investments by Invesco Blog

Market Vectors Vietnam ETF: Look Elsewhere

Summary The Market Vectors Vietnam ETF has lost 10.59% in the past year, while the VN Index has gained 5.45%. Vietnam is most successfully navigated by actively managed funds, that invest in companies that are undervalued and have high dividend yields. Foreign Ownership Limitation in Vietnam is another factor that attributes to the poor performance of the Market Vectors Vietnam ETF. Investment has been shifting towards Vietnam, due to some of the following factors that make investment in this country attractive: GDP growth of 6.12% in the second quarter of 2015. Manufacturing shift to Vietnam, due to wages in Vietnam being 46% lower than China . High youth population that is highly ambitious, making it an attractive destination for investment. Publicly listed companies that are undervalued and pay higher dividends relative to other countries in Asia. Vietnam can be characterized as a country with acceptable risks and high returns. However, there is a large discrepancy between the performance of investment funds in Vietnam. Choosing to invest in the wrong investment fund can be the difference between high returns and negligent returns or losses. The Market Vectors Vietnam ETF (NYSEARCA: VNM ) has lost 10.59% in the past year, which is very strange considering that the VN Index has gained 5.45% in the past year. While exchange traded funds provide low management fees and convenient access to global equity, a fund that loses substantially in a market like Vietnam should be a red flag for investors. Those wishing to gain exposure to Vietnam should give serious consideration as to whether this fund is a true reflection of the opportunities in Vietnam. While I am personally bullish on Vietnam and invest directly in listed equity in Vietnam, I question the value of this fund. Top Holdings of Listed Equity in Vietnam Taking a closer look at the top holdings of the fund’s listed equity, we can see that the top holdings are not a true reflection of the growth potential of Vietnam. The average P/E ratio for these companies is 17.8, the average 2014 ROE was 12%, and the average 2014 ROA was 5.1%. Strategic Navigation The average valuation is not at all attractive, as the average P/E ratio in Vietnam is 12.5. Actively managed investment funds that invest in a diversified portfolio of securities, with a lower P/E ratio than average, have been extremely successful. Moreover, targeting the SME sector is another effective strategy, which has allowed some funds to have dividend yields of 10%/year . It is clear to see that Vietnam is most successfully navigated by actively managed funds, that invest with the criteria of low valuation and high dividend yields. Compared to the VN Index, and especially actively managed funds, the performance of the Market Vectors Vietnam ETF is inferior. These investment funds, which are not listed on US Exchanges, provide verification that there is extreme opportunity for profit in this region, which is not reflected in the performance of the Market Vectors Vietnam ETF. Foreign Ownership Limitation The foreign ownership limitation is another factor in Vietnam that impacts the performance of foreign investment funds. The foreign ownership limitation in Vietnam generally restricts foreign ownership of listed equity to 49%, although it is limited to 10% or 30% in other cases. The Market Vectors Vietnam ETF does not currently invest in shares of companies that are fully held by foreign investors. This restricts the fund from investing in highly valuable companies that foreign investors are actively seeking, even to the point of being willing to pay a premium of up to 20% . PXP Vietnam Asset Management is another extremely successful company in Vietnam, whose success is partially attributed to the fact that 52.5% of its portfolio NAV is comprised of companies that are fully held by foreign investors. ETF Skepticism Exchange Traded Funds can sometimes be desirable, as they are characterized by low management fees and can sometimes produce desirable returns for investors. However, the case with Vietnam seems to be very clear; the most profitable venture for investors is to invest in actively managed funds or invest directly on the stock exchange in Vietnam. The inability of this fund to invest in companies that are fully held by foreign investors and its failure to invest in companies with low valuation are both factors that attribute to the fund’s poor performance. Sure the ETF is near its 52-week low and maybe there is some chance of profit, but it is clearly not the best form of investment in Vietnam for those seeking to leverage off of the long-term opportunities that Vietnam presents. I personally trade directly on the stock exchange in Vietnam, would never invest in this ETF, and believe that Vietnam is best navigated by the previous investment funds that I mentioned in this article. Alternatives Listed on US Exchanges Finding worthwhile investments in Vietnam that are listed on US Exchanges is very challenging, since there are not any ADRs specifically for Vietnam. However, investors can consider the following as alternatives for the Market Vectors Vietnam ETF: Vietnam Holdings Ltd . ( OTC:VNMHF ): Vietnam Holdings Ltd. is a close ended investment company that invests in listed equity in Vietnam. The company currently has a P/E of 5.33 and is investing in two companies, which are fully held by foreign investors, including DHG Pharmaceutical JSC and Vietnam Dairy Products JSC. These two factors may make it a worthwhile pursuit for investors. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. ( OTC:SSNLF ): Investors can also gain exposure to Vietnam indirectly by investing in Samsung, which shifted its manufacturing from China to Vietnam because of lower wages. Some of the holdings of the Market Vectors Vietnam ETF are listed on US Exchanges. These include Emerson Radio Corporation (NYSEMKT: MSN ), Student Transportation Inc. (NASDAQ: STB ), and DCP Midstream Partners LP (NYSE: DPM ). Conclusion Investors wishing to gain exposure to Vietnam should avoid the Market Vectors Vietnam ETF. The most attractive investments include investment funds not listed on US Exchanges, and directly investing in listed equity in Vietnam. However, the above alternatives that are listed on US Exchanges can be examined as potential alternatives. 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 (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

PIMCO Versus DoubleLine CEFs: Which Are Better?

Summary PIMCO multi-sector CEFs outperformed DoubleLine over a 3-year period, but DoubleLine was best over the past year. PIMCO and DoubleLine multi-sector CEFs were not very correlated with one another. High premium funds, like PGP and PHK, have had relatively poor performance. As a retiree seeking income at a reasonable risk, I have allocated a significant portion of my portfolio to bond funds. I do not have the time or requisite knowledge to select suitable individual bonds, so I purchase professionally-managed Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) or Closed-End Funds (CEFs). The ETFs are typically passive funds that track an index while the CEFs are actively managed. In the current environment of potentially risking rates, my preference is to invest in CEFs where the manager has the flexibility to reduce interest rate sensitivity by revamping their bond portfolio and diversifying away from indexes. Two of the most popular firms offering bond CEFs are Pacific Investment Management Company, better known as PIMCO, and DoubleLine. PIMCO had some rough times last year when “bond king” Bill Gross quit to take a position at Janus Capital. Allianz, PIMCO’s parent company, bled over 5 billion in market cap in a panic sell-off shortly after Gross left. However, it is still generally recognized that PIMCO has an excellent staff with deep experience in the bond market. Jeff Gundlach launched DoubleLine Capital in December 2009. With the departure of Gross from PIMCO, Gundlach has been crowned by many as the new “bond king.” Both PIMCO and DoubleLine have great reputations, so I decided to compare the multi-sector CEFs offered by these two companies to assess which company has had the “best” performance. 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. PIMCO Multi-Sector CEFS These funds are actively managed and their holding may change without prior notice. The funds typically use a combination of leverage and derivatives to enhance distributions. This strategy can generate above average income but can also run into trouble, like the 2008 bear market, where many of the PIMCO CEFs had substantial losses. The multi-sector bond CEFs are summarized below. PIMCO High Income Fund (NYSE: PHK ). On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 (the day before Gross announced his decision to leave PIMCO), this CEF was selling for a whopping 47% premium. This was not unusual since this fund typically sold at premiums of 50% or more. The premium has now dropped to about 42%; still large but well off the highs. The portfolio consists of 298 bonds, partitioned among corporate (39%), asset backed (28%), municipal (13%), loans (12%), and Government (5%). The effective leverage-adjusted duration is 4.2 years. The fund utilizes 26% leverage and has an expense ratio of 1.2%. The fund has an extremely high distribution of 13.7%, with no return of capital (ROC) over the past year. Note that in 2008, the price dropped 45% and in 2012, the fund hit another rough patch as the price only increased by 4.8% even though the Net Asset Value (NAV) soared over 40%. This divergence in 2012 was because the premium sharply declined from 70% to “only” 35%. PIMCO Income Strategy Fund (NYSE: PFL ). This CEF sells at a discount of 6%, which is unusual since the fund typically sells at a premium. Over the past 3 years, the fund has sold at an average premium of 2.4%. The fund holds 231 bonds allocated among corporate (43%), asset backed (24%), Government (12%), and loans (9%). The effective leverage-adjusted duration is 3.1 years. The fund utilizes 27% leverage and has an expense ratio of 1.2%. It has a distribution of 10%, with no return of capital. In 2008, the fund lost about 50% in both price and NAV. PIMCO Income Strategy Fund II (NYSE: PFN ). This CEF currently sells at a discount of 3.4%. In 2010, the fund strategy was revamped to decrease the focus on floating rate loans and enable the managers to invest in a wider range of fixed income assets. This is a sister fund to PFL and invests in securities with durations in the low-to-intermediate range. The effective leverage-adjusted duration is 3.2 years. The portfolio holds 260 securities partitioned among corporate (40%), asset backed (29%), Government (9%), and loans (9%). The fund utilizes 23% leverage and has an expense ratio of 1.2%. The distribution is 9.6%, with no return of capital. PFN was hit hard in 2008, losing over 50% in both NAV and price. This fund also struggled in 2013, with the price declining by 1%. PIMCO Global StockPLUS & Income Fund (NYSE: PGP ) . This CEF currently sells for a huge premium of 48% but this is a large drop from 52 week average premium of 67%. Over the past 5 years, the average premium has been 63% but on occasion, the premium has dropped to 30%. This fund utilizes an innovative approach by investing in S&P 500 and MSCI EAFE futures as well as bonds. The fund may also employ an equity index option strategy to increase income. The bond portion of the portfolio is focused on asset backed (46%) and corporate bonds (26%). The fund utilizes 38% leverage and has an expense ratio of 2.3%. The effective leverage-adjusted duration is only 1.2 years. The distribution is a high 11.6%, with no ROC over the past year. In 2008, the fund lost almost 50% in NAV and the price declined by 37%. The price of the fund also had losses in 2011 and 2014. PIMCO Income Opportunity Fund (NYSE: PKO ). This CEF currently sells at a discount of 2.5%, but over a 5-year period, this fund had an average premium of 2.6%. The portfolio has 421 holdings, allocated primarily among asset-backed bonds (43%) and corporate bonds (35%). Only about 70% of the bonds are from the USA. The fund utilizes 44% leverage and has an expense ratio of 2%. The effective leverage-adjusted duration is 3.4 years. The distribution is 9%, with no ROC over the past year. During 2008, this fund lost a little over 20% in both price and NAV but has not had a losing year since. PIMCO Dynamic Credit Income Fund (NYSE: PCI ). This CEF sells at a discount of 11.8%, which is a larger discount than the 52-week average of 8.9%. The fund was launched in January 2013, so it does not have a long history. It holds 625 securities, spread across corporate (32%), asset-backed bonds (44%) and cash equivalent (9.3%). The fund utilizes 43% leverage and has a 2.4% expense ratio. The effective leverage-adjusted duration is 3.2 years. The distribution is 9.2%, with no return of capital. PIMCO Dynamic Income Fund (NYSE: PDI ). This CEF sells for a discount of 6.7%, which is a larger discount than the 52-week average of 3.3%. This fund was launched in May 2012, so does not have a long history. It holds 397 securities, invested primarily in asset-backed bonds (68%) and corporate bonds (17%). The fund utilizes 46% leverage and has a high 3.1% expense ratio. The effective leverage-adjusted duration is 3.4 years. The distribution is 8.6%, with no return of capital. DoubleLine Multi-Sector CEFs DoubleLine funds have over $63 billion of assets under management and the founder, Jeffery Gundlach, has received many accolades from the investment community. The first DoubleLine multi-sector fund was not launched until 2013, so there was no way to assess the performance during the 2008 bear market. DoubleLine Opportunistic Credit Fund (NYSE: DBL ). This CEF sells at a discount of 1.9%, which is unusual since the fund usually sells at a premium (average premium over past 3 years was 3.7%). The portfolio has 213 holdings, most (96%) are invested in asset-backed bonds. The effective duration is 8.23 years. The fund employs 17% leverage and has an expense ratio of 1.7%. The fund has an inception date of January 2012, so it only has 3.5 years’ performance history. The fund has a distribution of 8.7% without any return of capital. DoubleLine Income Solutions Fund (NYSE: DSL ). This CEF sells at a discount of 10%, which is a larger discount than the 1-year average of 8%. The fund was launched in April 2013, so it does not have a long history. The fund utilizes 32% leverage and has an expense ratio of 2.2%. The effective duration is 6.3 years. The distribution is 9% with no return of capital. Risk versus Reward To assess the risk versus reward of these multi-sector funds over the past 3 years, I plotted the annualized rate of return in excess of the risk-free rate (called Excess Mu in the charts) versus the volatility of each of the funds. I used 1% as an estimate of the risk-free rate. The Smartfolio 3 program was used to generate the plot that is shown in Figure 1. Note that DSL and PCI were not included because they did not have a 3-year history. (click to enlarge) Figure 1. Risk versus reward over past 3 years As is evident from the figure, multi-sector bond funds have had a wide 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 DBL. If an asset is above the line, it has a higher Sharpe Ratio than DBL. Conversely, if an asset is below the line, the reward to risk is worse than DBL. Some interesting observations are apparent from Figure 1. The PIMCO CEFs outperformed the DoubleLine CEFs in terms of overall returns and risk-adjusted returns. DBL had about the same risk-adjusted return as PHK. Most of the ETFs had similar volatilities except for PHK and PGP, which were substantially more volatile. This illustrates that CEFs with large premiums tend to be more volatile since the fluctuations in premium add to the overall risk. Even though PHK and PGP had large distributions, this did not translate into the best risk-adjusted return. In fact, PHK and PGP lagged the other PIMCO funds in risk-adjusted return. PDI was easily the best performer on a risk-adjusted basis. I next wanted to assess if the relative outperformance of PIMCO continued during a more recent past. I reduced the look-back period to 2 years, which allowed me to include DSL and PCI. The results are shown in Figure 2 and are similar to the 3-year data. Again, PIMCO outperformed DoubleLine. PDI continued to be the best performer. The new kid on the block, DSL, lagged. PHK and PGP still had the largest volatility. (click to enlarge) Figure 2. Risk versus reward over past 2 years As a last analysis, I reduced the look-back to the last 12 months, and the results are shown in Figure 3. What a difference a year made! Generally, the multi-sector bond funds have had a rough time over the past 12 months, with interest rate fears dragging down performance. During this period, only 4 of the ETFs (DBL, PDI, PFN, and PKO) managed to stay in positive territory. Over the past 12 months, DBL was the best performer on both an absolute and risk-adjusted basis. PGP was by far the worst performer, due primarily to the reduction in premium, which resulted in both increased volatility and decreased price performance. This illustrates the risks inherent in buying a CEF with a huge premium. DSL was in the middle of the pack. (click to enlarge) Figure 3. Risk versus reward over past 12 months Diversification To round out the analysis, I assessed the diversification associated with these CEFs. 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. I calculated the pair-wise correlations associated with the funds over the past two years and the results are shown in Figure 4. (click to enlarge) Figure 4. Correlation matrix over the past 2 years The figure presents what is called a correlation matrix. The symbols for the funds are listed in the first column on the left side of the figure. The symbols are also listed along the first row at the top. The number in the intersection of the row and column is the correlation between the two assets. For example, if you follow PKO to the right for three columns, you will see that the intersection with PFL is 0.550. This indicates that, over the past 3 years, PKO and PFL were only 55% correlated. Note that all assets are 100% correlated with themselves, so the values along the diagonal of the matrix are all ones. It was somewhat surprising to see the small pair-wise correlations among these funds. The only exceptions were the sister funds PFN and PFL, which were 80% correlated with each other. This means that you can gain diversification if you purchase more than one of the funds. In particular, DoubleLine ETFs have a low correlation with PIMCO ETFs. So if you cannot decide which is best, you can diversify by buying one from each investment house. Bottom Line Unfortunately, the analysis was not definitive. PIMCO outperformed over the longer term, but DoubleLine was best over the past year. I believe the PIMCO problems stemmed mainly from the selling after Gross quit, which resulted in an erosion of premiums that translated into reduced prices. Of the PIMCO CEFs, PDI was the best performer. For DoubleLine, the prize went to DBL. In today’s volatile environment, I would definitely avoid funds with huge premiums such as PGP and PHK. 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 (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.