Tag Archives: contests

Cotton Holding Its Own Going Into 2016

Summary Despite the plunge in crude oil prices, cotton has remained relatively stable. Ending stocks and production both declined from the 2014/15 planting season. Cotton looks fairly valued here and doesn’t represent a good enough value for a buy recommendation. Welcome back to coverage on the iPath’s Dow Jones-UBS Cotton Total Return Sub-Index ETN (NYSEARCA: BAL ). This ETN has done a perfect job at tracking its index. For more information on the Cotton Index BAL follows and how this ETN tracks it, please check out a previous article here . A Year in Review Overall, cotton had a decent 2015. The biggest story came in the second half of the year. Despite plummeting oil prices, cotton has held its own. We previously discussed how cotton has a correlation to oil in this piece. See below for a comparison between BAL and The United States Oil ETF (NYSEARCA: USO ). In 2015, for the first time in over five years, cotton stocks ended the year lower than where they started. Data points on ending stocks and production decreases have been the main supporter of spot prices through oils decline. A Look Ahead As cotton traders look to 2016 there are two key metrics to keep an eye on, supply and demand. I know, I know, like you didn’t already know how economics work. However, with commodities, spot prices are sometimes supported by a belief that either demand will increase or production will decrease. This is the current case for cotton. Supply As already noted, ending stocks are finally headed in the right direction. However, they are still only about 10% off the all-time high ending stocks set last in 2014. China is solely credited for this as they began increasing their strategic reserves in 2011. As of December 2015 China had 14,157,000 metric tons in stock. This compares with only 6,767,000 in the 2011/12 season. See the spot price of cotton below in response to Chinese policy. The huge spike you see on the chart is the reaction to Chinese reserve policy. In July of 2015 China began selling state owned cotton stocks. Interestingly these supplies were priced at a premium to spot prices at the time. There has been much talk and speculation about the quality of Chinese stocks. The oldest sales in 2015 came from the 2011 harvest season. If there really were quality concerns with these stocks, given the volume sold, we would know more about it by now. I do believe there were isolated cases of quality issues however the widespread concerns and hype was a little overdone. There are five countries that make up the majority of cotton production and in order they are India, China, The United States, Pakistan, and Brazil. Globally production has fallen every year for the past five years. Demand The total consumption of cotton has risen every year for the last five years, despite the loss of market share. The current purchasing volume from mills indicates a consistent to cautious outlook for demand going into 2016. Current ICE cotton futures for December 2016 have ranged from 62-66 cents this year. Currently ICE futures all the way until October of 2018 are trading between 65.43 and 64.34 with the 2018 date representing the lowest in the range. In other words, investors aren’t betting on cotton spiking any time soon. Planting Seasons and Acreage Most volatility in cotton prices takes place into the summer months due to planting seasons. China plants from April to May and harvests from September to October. In northern India cotton is planted from March to June while southern India plants from May to July. In the United States planting occurs mainly from March to May and the harvesting is completed by December. The first half of the calendar year with cotton is spent positioning for what will happen during the second half. Right now there isn’t enough information on projected acreage but that will start to be made available soon as we get closer to planting season. In 2015 global acreage, in millions of hectares, stood at 31.24. This compares to 34.01 during the 2014/15 season. Kilogram yield per hectare also declined for the third straight year from 799 in 2013/14 to a projected 723 as of December 2015. For continuing information on production, demand, and planted acreage I recommend the monthly reports on cotton from the USDA . Conclusion China’s reserve policy will play a dominate roll in 2016 cotton prices. The number of planted acres and production of cotton has continued to decline despite rising demand. Cotton continues to lose market share to other fibers. With the current spot price hovering around 64 cents, this does not offer enough of a discount to what I see being a good value for cotton. Pending any unforeseen production issues, I see cotton remaining relatively flat in the near-term. The risks and rewards of an investment in cotton currently seem fairly even. I would suggest you wait for a better opportunity to initiate any new positions in BAL. Thank you very much for reading and I wish you a very profitable 2016.

The ETF Monkey 2016 Model Portfolio: Charles Schwab Implementation

Summary In a previous article, I introduced The ETF Monkey 2016 Model Portfolio. This portfolio offers my suggested model for 2016 based on careful review of the 2016 outlook from multiple high-quality research firms and/or investment providers. In that article, I also promised to build and then track practical implementations of the portfolio using ETFs from three different providers. This is the Charles Schwab implementation. This article is designed to be read in conjunction with the article in which I introduced The ETF Monkey 2016 Model Portfolio . In that article, I offered what I believe to be a model portfolio for 2016, based on my reading and analysis of materials related to the 2016 outlook from several top-quality sources. I further explained that I would both build and track actual implementations of this portfolio using ETFs from three major providers; Vanguard, Fidelity (featuring iShares funds) and Charles Schwab. This article features the Charles Schwab implementation. Overview I will start with a couple of tables. The first will briefly recap the asset classes and weightings that I identified in The ETF Monkey 2016 Model Portfolio, followed by the name and symbol of the Charles Schwab ETF I selected to represent that portion of the portfolio. The second will present a summary of key data for each ETF, including data points such as the expense ratio and average spread, the current dividend yield, and the size and daily volume of the fund. Combined, these will give you, in one glance, a big picture overview of the expenses and returns, as well as some idea of the fund’s tradeability. In this fashion, when I have completed my articles for all three selected providers, you will be able to do some side-by-side comparisons if you wish. Finally, one by one, I will offer other comments and data for each ETF. So let’s get started. Here is the first table, presenting my ETF selections. Asset Class Weighting ETF Name Symbol Domestic Stocks (General) 30.00% Schwab U.S. Broad Market SCHB Domestic Stocks (High Dividend) 5.00% Schwab US Dividend Equity SCHD Foreign Stocks – Developed 20.00% Schwab International Equity SCHF Foreign Stocks – Emerging Markets 7.50% Schwab Emerging Markets Equity SCHE Foreign Stocks – Europe 5.00% SPDR STOXX Europe 50 FEU TIPS 15.00% Schwab U.S. TIPS SCHP Bonds 10.00% Schwab U.S. Aggregate Bond SCHZ REITS 7.50% Schwab U. S. REIT SCHH Here is the second table, presenting key data points. (click to enlarge) When comparing the ETF selections across all 3 providers that I am featuring in this series of articles, likely something that will immediately jump out at you is that Charles Schwab is extremely serious about its expense ratios. It beats Vanguard, long known themselves for rock-bottom expense ratios, on 7 of the 8 ETFs I have selected to fill out the portfolio. In my Fidelity article , I noted that BlackRock (NYSE: BLK ) temporarily held the title of “world’s cheapest ETF” when they lowered the expense ratio of ITOT to .03%. However, this did not last long as Charles Schwab responded almost immediately by cutting the expense ratio on SCHB to match. It is worth noting, however, that Vanguard is still the overall winner when it comes to size and tradeability. I look forward to seeing how the results play out as I track all 3 portfolios moving forward. Note: In view of Vanguard’s standing in the ETF field, I decided to use the Vanguard implementation as the lead, or reference, article for the three implementations. I will in some cases refer back to, and compare, the related Vanguard ETF when discussing the selections I make for the Fidelity and Charles Schwab implementations of the portfolio. With that overview in mind, let’s now take a look at each of the ETFs. Schwab U.S. Broad Market As noted, Charles Schwab recently dropped the expense ratio on this fund to .03%. At the same time, it is not quite as broad or deep as either the Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (NYSEARCA: VTI ) or the iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF (NYSEARCA: ITOT ), in terms of complete market coverage. SCHB tracks the Dow Jones U.S. Broad Stock Market Index . Basically, this index includes the largest 2,500 stocks in the U.S. market, therefore excluding micro-caps and some small-caps. SCHB itself contains 2,070 holdings, a little more than half of VTI and ITOT. SCHB’s Top-10 holdings represent 14.4% of the total. At 1.93%, its distribution yield is right in line with VTI and just a little higher than ITOT. Viewed from a critical standpoint, then, this ETF could be considered slightly less of a genuinely “total market” fund than either of its competitors in my analysis. At the same time, its rock-bottom expense ratio combined with its substantial size and great tradeability make it a solid choice, particularly for the Schwab investor who can trade it commission-free. Schwab US Dividend Equity This ETF seeks to track the investment results of the Dow Jones U.S. Dividend 100 Index composed of relatively high dividend paying U.S. equities. As a result of using this index, it takes a little different approach than the Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF (NYSEARCA: VYM ). Whereas VYM contains 435 stocks, SCHD only contains 101. At the same time, I like how they are selected. The index screens both for a 10-year history of paying dividends as well as strong financial ratios. While this stringent process eliminates certain high-payers, and therefore drops the distribution yield a little bit, it leaves this ETF as a wonderful choice for conservative investors. Similar to VYM, REITs are excluded. However, sector allocations are somewhat different. For example, utilities comprise 7.6% of VYM, but only a scant 0.7% of SCHD. In contrast, industrials and information technology are more heavily weighted in SCHD. This holding is designed to help increase the level of income generated by the portfolio. Its 2.97% yield will act as a nice supplement to the 1.93% yield offered by SCHB, while SCHB should offer more opportunities for growth . My last note for this section is that you may have noticed that both SCHB and SCHD are tilted more toward large-caps, and a little more conservatively, that their competitors from both Vanguard and Fidelity. It will be interesting to watch their comparative returns in 2016. Schwab International Equity SCHF tracks the FTSE Developed ex U.S. Index . This index focuses on international large and mid-cap companies. As a result, it is not as broad an index as the one used by Vanguard for the Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets ETF (NYSEARCA: VEA ). This can be seen in the fact that this fund contains 1,217 holdings, as opposed to 1,866 for VEA. Interestingly, though, its Top-10 comprises 11.8% of its assets, only slightly higher than VEA’s 11.3%. Another little wrinkle is that its index includes both Canada as well as South Korea. Other providers tend to include South Korea under the “emerging market” umbrella. The combination of SCHF’s super-low .08% expense ratio, healthy asset base and great tradeability make it a rock-solid core for the international portion of any investor’s portfolio. Really, the only weakness that I can identify, when compared to its competitors in my analysis, is that it is a little light on exposure to smaller stocks. Schwab Emerging Markets Equity This is the counterpart to SCHF. This ETF invests in stocks of companies located in emerging markets around the world, such as China, India, Taiwan, and South Africa. Its goal is to closely track the return of the FTSE Emerging Index, very similar to the index tracked by the Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets ETF (NYSEARCA: VWO ). As noted above, however, South Korea is included in SCHF, and is not included here. At the end of the day, for purposes of The ETF Monkey 2016 Model Portfolio, it will all work out the same, as South Korea is included one way or the other. Additionally, I could not find any evidence either in Schwab’s online materials or the prospectus for SCHE to the effect that China A-shares are included at the present time. This ETF currently contains 759 holdings, with the Top-10 comprising 21.10% of its assets. Similar to its counterpart SCHF, it focuses on large and mid-cap companies, not as much in smaller companies. It carries an expense ratio of .14%, the lowest of the 3 competitors. SPDR STOXX Europe 50 FEU was a bit of a tough choice. I was unable to find much from Schwab in terms of ETFs targeted specifically at Europe. Of the possibilities I evaluated, this was my favorite. FEU seeks to provide investment results that, before fees and expenses, correspond generally to the total return performance of the STOXX Europe 50 Index . As that implies, it is not anywhere near as comprehensive as the competing offerings from Vanguard and Fidelity featured in my analysis. On the other hand, not only does it provide coverage of some of the largest and best companies in Europe, it crosses sectors well. Allow me to explain. The index does not simply look for the 50 largest companies in Europe. Here is how the prospectus explains it: The Index is designed to represent the performance of some of the largest companies across components of the 19 EURO STOXX Supersector Indexes. . . . The 50 companies in the Index are selected by first identifying the companies that equal approximately 60% of the free-float market capitalization of each [sector] . . . From that list, the 40 largest stocks are selected to be components of the Index. In addition, any stocks that are current components of the Index (and ranked 41-60 on the list) are included as components. In other words, the index ensures that all 19 sectors are represented, by the largest companies in each sector. Interestingly, the composition of the Top-10 ends up being quite similar to both the Vanguard FTSE Europe ETF (NYSEARCA: VGK ) and the iShares Core MSCI Europe ETF (NYSEARCA: IEUR ). It comes as no surprise, however, that they constitute a much larger percentage of the total; 37.19% for FEU vs. IEUR’s 15.83% and VGK’s 16.0%. With an expense ratio of .29%, it is also the priciest of the three competitors. However, the benefits of commission-free trading should offset that for Schwab investors. Schwab U.S. TIPS This ETF seeks to track an index that measures the performance of inflation-protected public obligations of the U.S. Treasury. Instead of comparing SCHP to Vanguard’s offering, as I have generally been doing in this series of articles, I am going to instead use the iShares TIPS Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: TIP ) as my reference point. In my opinion, to do any less would be to show disrespect to SCHP. Simply put, SCHP is a worthy competitor to TIP. Yes, it was launched in 2010, 7 years after TIP. Yes, it “only” has $813 million in AUM against TIP’s roughly $2 billion. But its rock-bottom .07% expense ratio, compared to .20% for TIP, has made it very popular with investors, leading to great acceptance and trading volume. In terms of the contents of the fund, they are almost identical to TIP. It contains 37 holdings, comparable to TIP’s 39, and comes in with an effective duration of 7.68 years, as opposed to 8.44 for TIP. Not surprisingly, SCHP’s dividend distribution of 1.93% is also very similar to TIP’s 1.98%. Long story short, this is a wonderful vehicle for any investor interested in the TIPS sector, and especially great for the Schwab investor who can trade commission-free. Schwab U.S. Aggregate Bond SCHZ tracks the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index . With an inception date of 7/14/2011, SCHZ is both newer, and far smaller, than its two competitors in my 3 tracked portfolios. Its AUM of $2.05 billion compares against the Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF’s (NYSEARCA: BND ) $27.12 billion and the iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF’s (NYSEARCA: AGG ) $30.38 billion. It also contains a smaller number of holdings; 2,612 as compared to 4,984 for AGG and 7,746 for BND. In terms of portfolio construction, SCHZ runs a little closer to AGG, having an effective duration of 5.26 years as compared to 5.36 years for AGG and 5.8 years for BND. Still, it offers broad market coverage and is a solid choice for buy-and-hold investors. Finally, at a puny .05%, it has the lowest expense ratio of the three. Schwab U.S. REIT SCHH tracks the Dow Jones U.S. Select REIT Index . SCHH has established itself as a formidable player in the REIT space. It does not contain as many holdings as either of its competitors in my analysis, with 100 holdings as opposed to the Vanguard REIT ETF’s (NYSEARCA: VNQ ) 154 holdings and the Fidelity MSCI Real Estate ETF’s (NYSEARCA: FREL ) 201 holdings. However, it still does a nice job of covering many different sectors; including Retail, Residential, Health Care, and Office REITS. With fewer holdings, it comes as no surprise that its largest holding, as well as its Top-10 holdings, are more heavily weighted than its competitors in my analysis. Simon Property Group (NYSE: SPG ), its single largest holding, carries a 9.9% weighting as opposed to 7.9% in VNQ and 6.39% in FREL, and its Top-10 holdings comprise a full 44.8 of its total as opposed to 35.9% in VNQ and 32.42% in FREL. At the same time, its expense ratio of .07% is by far the lowest of our 3 competitors, making it a solid holding for investors interested in holding a position in REITS. Summary and Conclusion So there you have them. The 8 ETFS that make up the Charles Schwab implementation of my portfolio. I have also written similar articles for both Vanguard and Fidelity, and will follow all 3 with an article that will begin the process of actually building and tracking the portfolios as of the closing price of all the components on December 31, 2015. Until then, I wish you . . . Happy investing!

Has The CEFL Rebalancing Train Left The Station?

Summary A previous article attempted to predict CEFL/YYY’s new composition for 2016. Three groups of CEFs are analyzed for their recent price, premium/discount and volume behavior. Frontrunning in the underlying CEFs may have already begun. Introduction In last week’s article ” Are You Ready For CEFL’s Year-End Rebalancing ?”, I discussed the fact that not only was the annual rebalancing of the ETRACS Monthly Pay 2xLeveraged Closed-End Fund ETN (NYSEARCA: CEFL ) nearly upon us, but that the index provider has modified its methodology this year so that changes to the index are no longer made public five days before the actual rebalancing event. Ostensibly, this change was enacted to prevent “front-running” of the index (for more information, refer to ” Frontrunning Yield Shares High Income ETF YYY And ETRACS Monthly Pay 2xLeveraged Closed-End Fund ETN CEFL: Could You Have Profited ?”), which last year caused heavy losses to CEFL holders as well as those of the YieldShares High Income ETF (NYSEARCA: YYY ), an unleveraged version of CEFL. Both CEFL and YYY track the ISE High Income Index [symbol YLDA], an index consisting exclusively of close-ended funds [CEFs], and both pay high, monthly distributions. However, although the index changes are not announced publicly beforehand this year, the index methodology is published and available to all. Therefore, I was quite certain that professional investors would be able to apply the index methodology to accurately determine which CEFs were to be added or removed from the index. Therefore, two days ago I attempted to replicate the index methodology in order to level the playing field for Seeking Alpha readers. As described in ” CEFL: A Year In Review, And A Prediction Of What’s Ahead “, my crude attempt to reproduce the rebalancing algorithm resulted in the identification of the 16 CEFs that could be added to the index, and the 16 CEFs that could be removed. 14 CEFs are predicted to remain in the index. I stressed that my predictions were only an estimate given that I used only an approximate volume ranking and also because I did not know the exact date from which the index provider would harvest the CEF data. However, I did receive some confirmation on my predictions from reader waldschm85 : Thanks for the article SC! I recalculated this morning and 27/30 of our holdings match. I did go ahead and use the volume as a filter so that is likely the difference. There are a few like NHF and TDF that I’m worried won’t meet the threshold based on the 90-day average volume from Yahoo Finance. That being said, I’m feeling good that some of your top holdings with solid volume like KYN, NFJ, BCX, RVT, etc. will be in the index. Another astute reader, Jhinkle, noted : 11 out of 15 to be sold had abnormally high volume on the last trading day. As well most were flat to slightly up compared to decent gains on the ones to be added. 3 in fact were down on price. It would seem the action has already started. Therefore, I wanted to analyze whether or not traders were already bidding up the CEFs to be added to the index, and/or selling the CEFs to be removed. I also discuss some implications and strategies that investors may take advantage of during CEFL’s rebalancing event. Has the CEFL rebalancing train already left the station? (click to enlarge) Credit: Ben Brooksbank ( some rights reserved ) Fund rotations In my previous article, I presented preliminary lists of CEFs that I predicted were to be added, removed or that will remain in the index. Below are reproduced the same lists except that I’ve arranged the CEFs in order of size, from largest to smallest. The Top 10 CEFs in each category are shown in bold. Added CEFs: RVT (NYSE: RVT ), BCX (NYSE: BCX ), NFJ (NYSE: NFJ ), DPG (NYSE: DPG ), NHF (NYSE: NHF ), DSL (NYSE: DSL ), CEM (NYSE: CEM ), CSQ (NASDAQ: CSQ ), KYN (NYSE: KYN ), CHI (NASDAQ: CHI ), TDF (NYSE: TDF ), USA (NYSE: USA ), NTG (NYSE: NTG ), FEI (NYSE: FEI ), UTF (NYSE: UTF ), BOE (NYSE: BOE ), ETJ (NYSE: ETJ ) Removed CEFs: NCZ (NYSE: NCZ ), NCV (NYSE: NCV ), BGY (NYSE: BGY ), HYT (NYSE: HYT ), CHW (NASDAQ: CHW ), DSL , ETY (NYSE: ETY ), FPF (NYSE: FPF ), VTA (NYSE: VTA ), MCR (NYSE: MCR ), MMT (NYSE: MMT ), EDD (NYSE: EDD ), JPC (NYSE: JPC ), ISD (NYSE: ISD ), EAD (NYSEMKT: EAD ), ERC (NYSEMKT: ERC ), ESD (NYSE: ESD ) CEFs that remain from last year: EVV (NYSEMKT: EVV ), GHY (NYSE: GHY ), EXG (NYSE: EXG ), AOD (NYSE: AOD ), PCI (NYSE: PCI ), GLO (NYSEMKT: GLO ), DSL , AWP (NYSE: AWP ), IGD (NYSE: IGD ), GGN (NYSEMKT: GGN ), FAX (NYSEMKT: FAX ), BGB (NYSE: BGB ), BIT (NYSE: BIT ), HIX (NYSE: HIX ) In this article, I analyze these three groups of CEFs in terms of three metrics: [i] price change, [ii] premium/discount change and [iii] volume change, to see if I could spot any differences in behavior between the three groups. I focus only on the top 10 CEFs in each group for two reasons. Firstly, as those CEFs have the largest weighting in the index, any changes in their price will have a larger impact on CEFL/YYY compared to funds with smaller weighting in the index. Secondly, the higher the allocation of the fund within the index, the more certain I am that that fund is indeed belongs to the category that I have assigned it to. I again wish to stress that all predictions about the CEFs to be added, removed or that will remain in the index are simply predictions, and the actual changes may be significantly different to what I have predicted. For the sake of brevity, however, from this point onwards I will no longer preface my predictions with the word “predicted”. 1. Price change How have the prices of the CEFs fared recently? To analyze this, I plotted the price change of the CEFs over five trading days, from December 21st to the 25th. Top 10 added CEFs RVT Price data by YCharts The graph above shows that out of the Top 10 added CEFs, KYN has the highest 5-day price return of 24.67%, followed by CEM at 13.30%. The average 5-day price return of the 10 CEFs is 7.26%. Top 10 removed CEFs NCZ Price data by YCharts The chart above shows that out of the Top 10 removed CEFs, BGY has the highest 5-day price return of 2.64%, followed by CHW at 1.83%. The average 5-day price return of the 10 CEFs is 1.12%. Top 10 remaining CEFs EVV Price data by YCharts The chart above shows that out of the Top 10 removed CEFs, GGN has the highest 5-day price return of 5.18%, followed by GHY at 3.30%. The average 5-day price return of the 10 CEFs is 2.08%.(Apologies that the above YChart does not appear to be showing correctly. You’ll have to take my word for the numbers). Summary Let’s take stock of the situation. The Top 10 CEFs that were to be added to the index experienced a 5-day price gain of + 7.75% , while the Top 10 CEFs that were to be removed from the index experienced a 5-day price gain of +1.13% . The Top 10 CEFs that remain in the index experienced a 5-day price gain of +1.83 %. Now, the astute reader may observe that two of the Top 10 CEFs to be added (KYN and CEM) are MLP CEFs, which experienced a tremendous rebound over the course of last week. Indeed, KYN rocketed higher by 24.67% while CEM gained 13.30%. Thus, I also calculated an “ex-MLP” average for the remaining 8 CEFs to be added. The answer came out to be +4.33% , which is still significantly greater than the other two categories of CEFs. The above data would support the notion that the CEFs to be added experienced buying pressure while the CEFs to be removed experienced substantially less buying pressure over the past 5 days. 2. Premium/discount change Perhaps a better way to determine buying and selling pressure on CEFs is to study changes in premium/discount value, because the premium/discount value reflects how much more (or less) investors are willing to pay for a CEF compared to its net asset value [NAV]. The following graphs show the change in premium/discount value for the CEFs over the period of last week, from December 21st to the 28th (source: CEFConnect ). Top 10 added CEFs The graph above shows that KYN experienced the largest increase in premium/discount at +4.54%, followed by TDF at +2.41%. 9 out of 10 CEFs to be added experienced positive gains in premium/discount value, while only NFJ had a slightly negative loss of -0.10%. The average of the 10 CEFs was +1.62%. Top 10 removed CEFs The chart above shows that HYT experienced the largest premium/discount increase at +1.52%, followed by VTA at +0.22%. However, 6 out of 10 CEFs experienced decreases in premium/discount value, with MCR and MMT both declining by -1.51%. The average of the 10 CEFs was -0.46%. Top 10 remaining CEFs Of the 10 remaining CEFs, GLO had the highest premium/discount increase of +1.42%, while DSL had the lowest premium/discount change of -1.90%. The average of the 10 CEFs was -0.02%. Summary The Top 10 CEFs that were to be added to the index experienced a 1-week premium/discount change of +1.62% , while the Top 10 CEFs that were to be removed from the index experienced a 1-week premium/discount change of -0.46% . The Top 10 CEFs that remain in the index experienced a 1-week premium/discount change of – 0.02% . The above data would support the notion that the CEFs to be added experienced buying pressure while the CEFs to be removed experienced slight selling pressure over the past 1 week. 3. Volume changes Volume changes can reveal unusual buying or selling pressure on individual CEFs. The below graphs show the changes in 30-day average daily volume for the CEFs over the past one month. I used the 30-day average daily volume rather volume to reduce the effect of volume spikes and make the data more easy to visually interpret. Top 10 added CEFs RVT 30-Day Average Daily Volume data by YCharts The Top 10 CEFs added averaged a +67.73% increase in 30-day average daily volume over the past month. Top 10 removed CEFs NCZ 30-Day Average Daily Volume data by YCharts The Top 10 CEFs removed averaged a +42.00% increase in 30-day average daily volume over the past month. Top 10 remaining CEFs EVV 30-Day Average Daily Volume data by YCharts The Top 10 CEFs remaining averaged a +41.11% increase in 30-day average daily volume over the past month. Summary The Top 10 CEFs that were to be added to the index experienced a 30-day average daily volume increase of +67.73% over the past month, while the Top 10 CEFs that were to be removed from the index experienced a 30-day average daily volume increase of +42.00% . The Top 10 CEFs that remain in the index experienced a 30-day average daily volume increase of +41.11% . The above data would support the notion that the CEFs to be added experienced buying pressure over the past 1 month. However, the volume of the CEFs to be removed was not significantly greater than that for the remaining CEFs (the control set). Discussion of results In this study, I compared the 5-day price change, 1-week premium/discount change and 1-month 30-day average daily volume change for three groups of CEFs. The first group were the Top 10 CEFs by weighting that I predicted were to be added to the index. If frontrunning of the index were to occur, this group would experience buying pressure before the rebalancing date. The second set were the Top 10 CEFs by weighting that I predicted would be removed from the index. If frontrunning were to occur, this group would experience selling pressure before the rebalancing date. The final group were the Top 10 CEFs by weighting that I predicted would remain in the index. While these CEFs may change in weighting depending on whether their relative allocations were to be increased or decreased, I still used this group as a control set because I would expect the increases or decreases to partially offset each other. The characteristics of the three groups are presented below. Top 10 added CEFs: +7.75% ( +4.43% ex-MLP) price change, +1.62% premium/discount change and +67.73% volume change. Top 10 removed CEFs: +1.13% price change, -0.46% premium/discount change and +42.00% volume change. Top 10 remaining CEFs: +1.83% price change, -0.02% premium/discount change and +41.11% volume change. Now, readers may draw their own conclusions from the data, but it is clear to me that the frontrunning may have already begun. Both the price and premium/discount data support this idea across three data sets. The volume data indicates higher buying pressure among the added CEFs, although the volumes of the removed CEFs and the remaining CEFs were similar. What are the implications for investors? If this frontrunning behavior were to continue, there are a number of possible strategies for investors depending on the time frame: Sell CEFL or the CEFs to be removed now. While the CEFs to be added have already shown significant increases in price, the CEFs to be removed have not yet experienced heavy selling. Last year, the top 10 CEFs to be removed declined by -3.38% in the one week before the rebalancing date. If further selling in these CEFs were to occur, CEFL will decline in value. Sell the added CEFs just before rebalancing . A number of the CEFs to be added showed increases in both price and premium/discount values. If these were to revert after rebalancing, then those CEFs will decline in value. The best time to execute this strategy may be just before the rebalancing is to take place. Buy the removed CEFs after the rebalancing. Frontrunning may cause the prices and premium/discount values of the removed CEFs to be artificially depressed in price. This might make these funds good buys after the rebalancing is complete. I close by repeating again that my list of CEFs are simply predictions of the upcoming changes and the actual changes may be materially different to my predictions. A final cautionary note is warranted, as presented by reader cpyles42 : Furthering your cautionary note for all the amateur front runners – if UBS has already front run, they will simply cross their positions at rebalance, book a nice profit for themselves and the buying/selling that everybody is expecting to emerge to get them out of their front run positions at the beginning of the year will be absent. if enough people front-ran you could even see a paradoxical response, this happens all the time in markets because market positioning if often the most important short-Term factor. I have provided the 5-day price changes for all the CEFs in each of the three groups for further consideration by readers, in order of largest to smallest price change. 16 added CEFs (click to enlarge) 16 removed CEFs (click to enlarge) 14 remaining CEFs