Tag Archives: author

Closet Indexers Will Go The Way Of The Buggy And The Whip

“The decade long run of money moving out of actively managed mutual funds in favor of passive indexes and exchange-traded products speaks volumes about investors’ palate for active management these days,” according to a recent article in Investment News. The piece touches on how to identify active managers who are not simply hugging the benchmark in an overly cautious effort not to get beat by it. The key is to be selective, according to the article, but this can be challenging due to the large number of funds and fund classes available. Professor Martijn Cremers of Notre Dame says benchmark-huggers virtually guarantee failure, saying “The more holdings a fund has that are different from the benchmark, the more potential the fund has for performance that is different from that benchmark.” Cremers launched a website ActiveShare.info aimed at uncovering the most active of active managers, using a simple equation dividing the funds expense ratio by the index overlap. President of Touchstone Investment, Steve Graziano, is critical of benchmark huggers that are charging active-management fees. “We manage active funds because you have to be different from the benchmark in order to survive… We’re right at the intersection of where closet indexers will go the way of the buggy and the whip.”

DOL Opens The Door To SRI Investing In Retirement Plans

Sustainable, responsible, and impact (SRI) investing is a growing part of the investment landscape. Assets under management using SRI strategies now total $6.57 trillion, or $1 out of every $6 under professional management in the U.S., and these numbers are growing. 1 Between 2012 and 2014, SRI investing grew by more than 76%. 1 A recent survey indicates that the majority of millennials believe business can do more to address society’s challenges in the areas of climate change and resource scarcity. 2 This year Morningstar launched environmental, social, and governance (ESG) scores for global mutual and exchange-traded funds. 3 Despite the growing interest in SRI strategies, most retirement plans such as 401(k) plans were slow to incorporate ESG factors in the investment evaluation process. That may be about to change. Last fall the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) published guidance that seems to open the door to greater use of SRI strategies in retirement plans. This guidance, in the form of an interpretive bulletin, steps back from prior DOL guidance that appeared to require plan fiduciaries to give economically targeted investments (ETIs) special scrutiny not required of other types of plan investments. While it is too early to tell whether the DOL bulletin will lead to increased adoption of SRI strategies by retirement plans, if you have clients or prospective retirement plan clients who have expressed an interest in SRI strategies, the new guidance provides an excellent vehicle for reexamining this issue. SRIs Defined A variety of terms in addition to “SRI” are used to describe an investment strategy that takes ESG factors into consideration to select investments that will have both competitive financial returns and a positive societal impact (e.g., socially responsible investing, sustainable investing). The DOL uses the term “economically targeted investments” (ETIs), which it defines as investments chosen because of “the economic benefits they create apart from their investment return to the employee benefit plan.” 4 Common types of investments include affordable housing, small business development, community services (child care, health care, education), job creation, expansion of existing businesses, and support of sustainable development initiatives. ETIs appear in a variety of forms including stocks, mutual funds, private equity, real estate, and fixed income. The “All Things Being Equal” Test The first formal position the DOL took on SRI investing, referred to by the DOL as ETIs, was in Interpretive Bulletin (IB) 94-1. In that bulletin, the DOL established the “all things being equal” test. This test had three prongs. A plan fiduciary can never subordinate the interests of plan participants and beneficiaries to a social purpose. The ETI must have an expected rate of return commensurate to rates of return of alternate investments “with similar risks available to the plan.” The ETI must otherwise be an appropriate investment considering the diversification of plan investments and the plan’s investment policy. As long as plan interests were not subordinated and the ETI could be expected to return a comparable rate of return as investments with similar risks, a plan fiduciary could offer ETI as an investment option. In effect, plan fiduciaries could use ESG factors to break a tie with an equivalent non-SRI option. Special Scrutiny Requirement Added in 2008 IB 94-1 remained the DOL’s principal guidance on the topic until it was replaced in 2008 by Interpretive Bulletin 2008-1. The 2008 pronouncement put SRI strategies in a much less favorable light as compared to the 1994 guidance. In the 2008 bulletin, the DOL said that consideration of non-economic, ESG factors Should be rare, and When an ETI is considered, the decision to invest should be documented in a manner that demonstrates compliance with ERISA’s rigorous standards. The 2008 bulletin seemed to require plan fiduciaries to give a level of attention and circumspection to SRIs not required for other plan investments. DOL Restores & Enhances the “All Things Being Equal” Test Recently, the DOL expressed its view that the 2008 bulletin was unduly discouraging plan fiduciaries from investing in ETIs or considering ESG factors, even when the investments were economically equivalent.5 To address these concerns, the DOL withdrew the 2008 bulletin and replaced it with IB 2015-01, guidance more aligned with the position it had communicated in 1994. In its Fact Sheet released with the 2015 bulletin, the DOL said that the “IB also acknowledges that in some cases ESG factors may have a direct relationship to the economic and financial value of the plan’s investment.” 5 The DOL went on to say that, “in such instances, the ESG issues are not merely collateral considerations or tie-breakers, but rather are proper components of the fiduciary’s primary analysis of the economic merits of competing investment choices.” 5 The effect of the DOL’s 2015 bulletin is significant. The three-prong test of IB 94-1 is restored. Plan fiduciaries do not have a “higher level” obligation to scrutinize and document ETIs than they do for other plan investments. ESG factors can be taken into account in determining the economic benefit of investments and to find superior investments. Challenges & Opportunities If you have retirement plan clients or prospective clients who are interested in SRI strategies, IB 2015-01 provides an excellent vehicle for discussing whether SRI strategies are a good fit for their retirement plan’s investment portfolio. Following are some possible discussion points to include in your SRI discussions. Discuss whether your client wants to incorporate ESG factors in their investment evaluation process . Do members of the plan’s investment committee believe that ESG factors will materially impact the financial performance of the plan’s investments? Are there demographic and diversity factors at play that will affect the decision to provide ESG-driven funds such as a high concentration of Millennials? Do members of the committee need additional education regarding SRI investing? Evaluate how an SRI strategy would impact the existing fund lineup . How many investment options are currently provided to participants? Where in the fund lineup would it make sense to add an SRI strategy? Consider how to integrate SRI beliefs and expectations into the existing investment policy statement (IPS) and investment due diligence process . Does the IPS need to be adjusted to incorporate ESG considerations? Will there need to be any changes in the process for selecting and monitoring the plan’s investment menu? Does the documentation retained by the investment committee need to be modified or expanded? These basic inquiries will be a good starting point for discussing SRI strategies with plan sponsors. As with all investment decisions, you play a critical role in helping your plan sponsor clients define and pursue investment objectives that are right for their plans. Clients that elect to adopt an SRI strategy will need your support to Define their investment objectives Develop or amend the IPS that sets out clear rules and metrics for evaluating investment return and risk equivalencies Identify and evaluate investment opportunities Review and evaluate SRI fund prospectuses Document the SRI decision-making process, as they do with other plan investments Educate plan participants about SRIs Footnotes US SIF Foundation, Report on US Sustainable, Responsible, and Impact Investing Trends 2014 Deloitte, The Deloitte Millennial Survey , January 2014 Morningstar, Inc. Press Release, “Morningstar Introduces Industry’s First Sustainability Rating for 20,000 Funds Globally, Giving Investors New Way to Evaluate Investments Based on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Factors,” March 1, 2016 Department of Labor, Interpretive Bulletin 2015-01, October 26, 2015 Department of Labor, Fact Sheet: “Economically Targeted Investments (ETIs) and Investment Strategies that Consider Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Factors,” October 22, 2015 FOR INVESTMENT PROFESSIONAL, BROKER-DEALER AND INSTITUTIONAL USE ONLY. NOT FOR USE BY OR DISTRIBUTION TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. This material is for informational purposes only and nothing herein constitutes investment, legal, accounting or tax advice. Information is obtained from sources deemed reliable, but there is no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, completeness or reliability. All information is current as of the date of this material and is subject to change without notice. Neuberger Berman does not accept any responsibility to update any opinions or other information contained in this document. Any views or opinions expressed may not reflect those of the firm or the firm as a whole. This material is informational and educational in nature, is not individualized and is not intended to serve as the primary or sole basis for any investment or tax-planning decision. Investing entails risks, including possible loss of principal. The material includes copyrighted information of Integrated Retirement. ©2016 Integrated Retirement. Published by permission. All rights reserved. Neuberger Berman LLC is a registered Investment Advisor and Broker Dealer. Member FINRA/SIPC. The “Neuberger Berman” name and logo are registered service marks of Neuberger Berman Group LLC. All rights reserved. © 2009-2016 Neuberger Berman LLC. | All rights reserved) from the feed, and any images/charts as they appear on the original blog article

Best And Worst Q2’16: Energy ETFs, Mutual Funds And Key Holdings

The Energy sector ranks last out of the ten sectors as detailed in our Q2’16 Sector Ratings for ETFs and Mutual Funds report. Last quarter , the Energy sector ranked ninth. It gets our Very Dangerous rating, which is based on aggregation of ratings of 22 ETFs and 100 mutual funds in the Energy sector. See a recap of our Q1’16 Sector Ratings here . Figures 1 and 2 show the five best and worst rated ETFs and mutual funds in the sector. Not all Energy sector ETFs and mutual funds are created the same. The number of holdings varies widely (from 25 to 144). This variation creates drastically different investment implications and, therefore, ratings. Investors should not buy any Energy ETFs or mutual funds because none get an Attractive-or-better rating. If you must have exposure to this sector, you should buy a basket of Attractive-or-better rated stocks and avoid paying undeserved fund fees. Active management has a long history of not paying off. 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 Four ETFs 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 Rydex Series Energy Service Portfolio (MUTF: RYVIX ) is excluded from Figure 2 because its total net assets are below $100 million and do not meet our liquidity minimums. Market Vectors Oil Services ETF (NYSEARCA: OIH ) is the top-rated Energy ETF and MainStay Cushing Renaissance Advantage Fund (MUTF: CRZZX ) is the top-rated Energy mutual fund. Both earn a Neutral rating. iShares US Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF (NYSEARCA: IEO ) is the worst rated Energy ETF and Saratoga Advantage Energy and Basic Materials Portfolio (MUTF: SBMBX ) is the worst rated Energy mutual fund. Both earn a Very Dangerous rating. 178 stocks of the 3000+ we cover are classified as Energy stocks. LyondellBasell Industries (NYSE: LYB ) is one of our favorite stocks held by CRZZX and earns a Very Attractive rating. Over the past five years, LYB has grown after-tax profit ( NOPAT ) by 10% compounded annually. Over the same time period, Lyondell’s return on invested capital ( ROIC ) has improved from 17% to a top-quintile 22%. Additionally, over the past four years, LYB has generated a cumulative $14.8 billion in free cash flow . Despite the strength of the business, LYB is undervalued. At its current price of $88/share, LYB has a price-to-economic book value ( PEBV ) ratio of 0.8. This ratio means that the market expects LYB’s NOPAT to permanently decline by 20% from current levels. If LYB can grow NOPAT by just 4% compounded annually for the next decade , the stock is worth $139/share today – a 58% upside. Hess Corporation (NYSE: HES ) is one of our least favorite stocks held by IEO and earns a Dangerous rating. Contrary to GAAP net income, which has fluctuated wildly over the past decade, Hess’ NOPAT has only worsened by declining from $1.7 billion in 2005 to -$859 million in 2015. Over the same time period, Hess’ ROIC has fallen from 11% to -2%. In a large disconnect from reality, HES has risen over 50% over the past three months, which has made shares more overvalued. In order to justify its current price of $57/share, Hess must immediately achieve positive pre-tax margins (from -22% in 2015) and grow revenue by 20% compounded annually for the next 20 years . In this scenario, 20 years from now Hess would be generating $254 billion in revenue, which would nearly equal oil giant Exxon’s 2015 revenue. The expectations already embedded in HES are unrealistically high. Figures 3 and 4 show the rating landscape of all Energy ETFs and mutual funds. Figure 3: Separating the Best ETFs From the Worst ETFs Click to enlarge Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Figure 4: Separating the Best Mutual Funds From the Worst Mutual 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, sector 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.