Scalper1 News
The Large Cap Blend style ranks first out of the twelve fund styles as detailed in our Q1’16 Style Ratings for ETFs and Mutual Funds report. Last quarter , the Large Cap Blend style ranked second. It gets our Attractive rating, which is based on aggregation of ratings of 35 ETFs and 873 mutual funds in the Large Cap Blend style. See a recap of our Q4’15 Style Ratings here. Figures 1 and 2 show the five best and worst-rated ETFs and mutual funds in the style. Not all Large Cap Blend style ETFs and mutual funds are created the same. The number of holdings varies widely (from 19 to 1507). This variation creates drastically different investment implications and, therefore, ratings. Investors seeking exposure to the Large 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 SPDR MSCI USA Quality Mix ETF (NYSEARCA: QUS ), the FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index ETF (NASDAQ: QLC ), and the SPDR MFS Systematic Core Equity ETF (NYSEARCA: SYE ) 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 SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF (NYSEARCA: DIA ) is the top-rated Large Cap Blend ETF and the Vulcan Value Partners Fund (MUTF: VVPLX ) is the top-rated Large Cap Blend mutual fund. Both earn a Very Attractive rating. The PowerShares Russell 1000 Equal Weight Portfolio ETF (NYSEARCA: EQAL ) is the worst-rated Large Cap Blend ETF and the Goldman Sachs Absolute Return Tracker Fund (MUTF: GARTX ) is the worst-rated Large Cap Blend mutual fund. EQAL earns a Neutral rating and GARTX earns a Very Dangerous rating. The Travelers Companies (NYSE: TRV ) is one of our favorite stocks held by DIA and earns a Very Attractive rating. Since 2004, Travelers has grown after-tax profit ( NOPAT ) by 14% compounded annually. Travelers has tripled its return on invested capital ( ROIC ) from 4% in 2004 to 12% on a trailing-twelve-months (TTM) basis and has generated positive free cash flow every year of the past decade. It should come as no surprise then that TRV is up 80% over the past five years. What may surprise some, though, is that TRV remains significantly undervalued. At its current price of $107/share, TRV has a price to economic book value ( PEBV ) ratio of 0.6. This ratio means that the market expects that Travelers’ NOPAT will permanently decline by 40%. If Travelers can grow NOPAT by just 2% compounded annually for the next decade , the stock is worth $182/share today – a 70% upside. Clean Harbors Inc. (NYSE: CLH ) is one of our least favorite stocks held by GARTX and earns a Very Dangerous rating. Clean Harbors had built a successful business prior to the global recession in 2008-2009. Unfortunately, the company has failed to regain the heights of 2008-2009. Since 2010, Clean Harbors has grown NOPAT by only 3% compounded annually while its NOPAT margin has declined from 8% to 3%. Similarly, the company’s ROIC has fallen from 13% in 2010 to a bottom-quintile 3% on a TTM basis. Meanwhile, the stock remains valued as if Clean Harbors were still operating at pre-recession levels, which makes it greatly overvalued. To justify its current price of $42/share, Clean Harbors must maintain its 2014 pre-tax margin (7.1%) and grow NOPAT by 12% compounded annually for the next 16 years . This expectation seems rather optimistic given Clean Harbors deteriorating margins and profits since 2010. Figures 3 and 4 show the rating landscape of all Large 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 Kyle Guske II receive no compensation to write about any specific stock, 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. 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. Scalper1 News
Scalper1 News