Tag Archives: contests

Nathan Buehler Positions For 2016: Attractive Opportunities In ETFs

You don’t have to trade every day to make above average returns in the market. Patience is the key to any good strategy. For typical ETFs that track broader indexes, watch the management fees when considering a fund. The Fed will continue to provide distractions throughout 2016 with constant assessment and analyses of when they will raise again and what that means for the economy. Welcome to the ETFs section of Seeking Alpha’s Positioning for 2016 series! This year we have once again asked experts on a range of different asset classes and investing strategies to offer their vision for the coming year and beyond. As always, the focus is on an overall approach to portfolio construction. Nathan Buehler has been an author on Seeking Alpha since May 2014, specializing in the coverage of ETFs and volatility investments. In addition to writing on Seeking Alpha, he works full time as a Teacher in the Lee County School District, volunteers as his communities HOA President, and participates in local government. Most of his strategy is geared towards long term outlook with focuses on short term events or situations that create attractive opportunities. Seeking Alpha’s Carolyn Pairitz recently spoke with Nathan to find out what he is expecting from ETFs in 2016. Carolyn Pairitz ((CP)): While you cover a number of ETF topics, the VIX has been your focus on Seeking Alpha. What drew you to study and invest in volatility? Nathan Buehler (NB): I started investing in penny stocks when I was a teenager. I had no idea what I was doing and lost most of the money I invested. I didn’t give up and was always looking for ways to get rich quick. Getting rich quick also led to additional losses. As I grew up and matured I began to realize there was an opportunity to make money off of people that were either looking to get rich quick or panicking. I started researching volatility as an asset class and began practicing with options strategies and trying to learn everything I could about how volatility behaves relative to the market. Eventually I fine-tuned my knowledge of the VIX to the point I felt comfortable trading it. I love investor psychology and I will often have different takes and points of view on the VIX than other seasoned investors. This again comes from the fact I am self-taught. I learn something new every day and use that to continuously improve upon my investment objectives. CP: Do you have any advice for readers considering ETFs for their portfolios in 2016? NB: For typical ETFs that track broader indexes, watch the management fees. There are a number of very low cost funds run by very reputable companies. For volatility ETFs my only advice is to fully educate yourself before trading these products. This is also true for many ETFs that track commodities and have very specific objectives. ETFs don’t always behave like a stock and can lead to serious losses if an investor is not properly prepared. CP: Going into 2015, which asset classes are you overweight? Which are you underweight? NB: In my general portfolio I have moved overweight in select oil companies. I believe this is a cyclical pattern and as long oil prices stay low, demand will keep increasing. Eventually economics will take over and the present fear factor will clear itself up. These are positions I plan on keeping for 5-10 years so even if oil takes another year to recover, I am fine with waiting. CP: The SEC recently proposed rules that could shake up the current structure of leveraged ETFs. Could you elaborate on this further and how it could affect the ETF market in 2016? NB: The ETF companies have been on top of this from the start and ProShares even contacted me directly in response to one of my articles that covered the topic. For right now it doesn’t appear that this rule will have a real effect on any of the 2x leverage ETFs. However, many if not all 3x leverage products could be forced to close. I am not a fan of 3x leverage products and I feel this is the right decision to protect investors from themselves. At some point it is wrong to let people purchase a product that could wipe out their entire net worth in one day. Gambling is still legal if someone wants to bet it all on black. CP: With the Fed having raised fund rates this December, are you updating you VIX strategy or do you feel this change was already priced into the market? NB: I felt that the rise in rates was long overdue and well expected by the market. I was hoping for a hold which would have created an excellent opportunity for a sharp increase in volatility. The Fed will continue to provide distractions throughout 2016 with constant assessment and analyses of when they will raise again and what that means for the economy. To me, the Fed is just a bunch of noise. They get people hopped up and will calm the markets down. They have been a good tool in respects to volatility. CP: Are there any global issues on the horizon that ETF investors should pay particular attention to? NB: Geopolitical events always provide good opportunities for volatility. Two years ago Russia was providing regular spikes in volatility. The world loves a villain. We make movies about them and the super heroes that save us. Russia and China used to be those villains in regards to the stock market. Investors loved to gawk over what Russia was doing, who they were invading, and how China’s economy was collapsing. Now we have ISIS. Friends and foes alike have come together to take on ISIS. As far as I am concerned, this is a negative for volatility, a positive for the market, and a win for humanity. CP: As a teacher and an author on Seeking Alpha, do you have any advice for readers who work a full time job but also want to be involved in the markets? NB: There have been multiple studies out on how teachers make the best investors. Each of these studies cited one fact consistently, lack of trading. You don’t have to trade every day to make above average returns in the market. I constantly get questions on timing the market, when to get in, when to get out, etc. Investors need to chill out. My goal is to make a 15% return during the calendar year. Not 15% in January and then try for 80% by December. Patience is the key to any good strategy and if you are glued to your monitor all day watching the ticks of the market it isn’t healthy. I would conclude that a full time job gives you proper time to analyze the markets in the evenings and make more rational decisions by the next trading day.

CEFL: A Year In Review, And A Prediction Of What’s Ahead

Summary 2015 has not been a good year for CEFL unitholders: income declined by 20% while price declined by 33%. This article presents a review of CEFL happenings in 2015, and a forecast of what’s ahead for 2016. Based on the publicly available index methodology, the CEFs to be added or removed are predicted. Introduction The ETRACS Monthly Pay 2xLeveraged Closed-End Fund ETN (NYSEARCA: CEFL ) is a 2x leveraged exchange-traded note [ETN] that tracks twice the monthly performance of the ISE High Income Index [symbol YLDA]. The YieldShares High Income ETF (NYSEARCA: YYY ) tracks the same index, but is unleveraged. CEFL is a popular investment vehicle among retail investors due to its high income (24.52% trailing twelve months yield), which is paid monthly. With 2015 nearly behind us, I thought I would review the characteristics of this year’s iteration of CEFL, and also look ahead at what might be in store for us in 2016. (Source: Main Street Investor ) 2015 portfolio YLDA holds 30 closed-end funds [CEFs], and is rebalanced annually. As I have previously discussed in my three-part “X-raying CEFL” series, this year’s iteration of CEFL (and thus also YYY) had the following characteristics: CEFL is comprised of approximately one-third equity and two-thirds debt, is effectively leveraged by 240% and has a total expense ratio of 4.92% per dollar invested in the fund (or 2.05% per dollar of assets controlled) (discussed in ” X-Raying CEFL: Leverage And Expense Ratio Statistics “). CEFL contained around two-thirds of North American (primarily U.S.) assets, with the rest being international. Moreover, the North American component of CEFL contains a higher allocation to debt vs. equity than the European component of CEFL (discussed in ” X-Raying CEFL (Part 2): Geographical Distribution “). CEFL is not very interest-rate sensitive as most of the holdings of CEFL are most-correlated with high-yield debt (discussed in ” X-Raying CEFL (Part 3): Interest Rate Sensitivity “). Actually, I might have been inaccurate in my last prediction. Over the last year, the price action of CEFL has actually moved in the same direction to interest rates, which is exactly opposite to what would be expected for a traditional bond fund. But this is not entirely surprising for CEFL, because high-yield debt usually tend to trade in tandem with equities and in the opposite direction to treasuries. Indeed, CEFL had a positive +0.71 correlation with U.S. equities (via SPDR S&P 500 ETF (NYSEARCA: SPY ) over the past year, but a negative -0.24 correlation with treasuries (via the iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF) (NYSEARCA: TLT ) (source: InvestSpy ). Thus, readers who worried that higher interest rates would lower the price of CEFL may actually have been pleasantly surprised that the opposite has held true this year. Decreasing yield Seeking Alpha author Professor Lance Brofman has done a wonderful job predicting the upcoming distributions for CEFL (see his latest article here ), while also providing expert commentary in his area of expertise. The distribution history for CEFL, which now has paid out 24 months of dividends, is presented below. Unfortunately, we see that the distributions paid out by CEFL have been in decline. In 2014, each share of CEFL paid out $4.74 of distributions, but in 2015, each share of CEFL only paid out $3.82 of distributions. This means that the distribution of CEFL has declined by 19.5% year on year. I believe that a large reason for the distribution decline can be attributed to the rebalancing debacle that occurred at the turn of this year (see below). CEFL has a current trailing twelve months yield of 24.52%. Rebalancing debacle The annual rebalancing in the index YLDA was disastrous for CEFL and YYY holders. The reasons for this have been summarized in my recent article ” Are You Ready For CEFL’s Year-End Rebalancing ?” In short, up to 10% of the net asset value of CEFL may have been lost due to traders (including, perhaps, UBS themselves) buying and selling the CEFs to be added or removed from the index ahead of the actual rebalancing date (a form of “front-running,” see this Bloomberg article for more information on this phenomenon). For further study on the rebalancing issue, consult my previous articles on this issue in the below links: Predicting the 2016 portfolio How might the portfolio of CEFL change upon the next rebalancing event, which is scheduled to occur in the next few days? As discussed in my most recent CEFL article, the index provider has decided that upcoming index will not be announced 5 days in advance. This was intended to prevent “front-running” of the index. However, with the index methodology published and available to all, I had little doubt that professional investors would be able to use the selection rules to determine which stocks would be added or removed from the index. Therefore, in an attempt to level the playing field for everyone else, I have tried to approximate the index methodology in order to predict CEFL’s portfolio for 2016. The selection methodology for the index is reproduced below (source: ISE ). 1. Restrict selection universe to closed-end funds with market cap > $500M and six month daily average volume > $1M. 2. Rank each fund by the following three criteria: i. Fund yield (descending) ii. Fund share price Premium / Discount to Net Asset Value (ascending) iii. Fund Average Daily Value (ADV) of shares traded (descending) 3. Calculate an overall rank for each fund by taking the weighted average of the three ranks with the following weightings: yield: 50%, premium/discount: 25%, average daily value: 25%. 4. Select the 30 funds with the highest overall rank. Using CEFAnalyzer , I obtained a list of the 141 CEFs with market cap > $500M. Unfortunately, I was unable to apply a volume filter because I was not sure what specific time period CEFAnalyzer reports volume data for. I then replicated the index methodology for the 141 CEFs on this list. The below table shows the top 30 CEFs for either distribution yield or discount among the CEFs with market cap > $500M. Rank Ticker Yield Rank Ticker Discount 1 GGN 17.14% 1 BCX -16.92% 2 PHK 14.58% 2 AOD -16.88% 3 KYN 14.44% 3 AWP -16.29% 4 NHF 14.23% 4 IGR -16.19% 5 HIX 13.06% 5 FAX -16.09% 6 TDF 13.03% 6 RNP -15.64% 7 IGD 12.67% 7 GLO -15.33% 8 RVT 12.40% 8 RVT -15.07% 9 CEM 11.73% 9 NFJ -15.04% 10 PTY 11.69% 10 DPG -15.04% 11 GLO 11.37% 11 UTF -14.93% 12 GAB 11.21% 12 ADX -14.92% 13 EXG 11.17% 13 TY -14.81% 14 BCX 11.12% 14 WIW -14.79% 15 CHI 11.11% 15 TDF -14.63% 16 ETJ 11.05% 16 NXJ -14.58% 17 EAD 10.94% 17 NHF -14.57% 18 DSL 10.89% 18 NIE -13.63% 19 CHY 10.89% 19 NQP -13.40% 20 PFN 10.75% 20 USA -13.32% 21 PCI 10.74% 21 FSD -13.31% 22 FEI 10.44% 22 BIT -13.04% 23 ETW 10.36% 23 GDV -12.81% 24 AWP 10.24% 24 JQC -12.70% 25 NTG 9.95% 25 CAF -12.50% 26 PCN 9.86% 26 IGD -12.41% 27 CSQ 9.81% 27 VTA -12.33% 28 PDI 9.62% 28 RQI -12.27% 29 NFJ 9.62% 29 BDJ -12.10% 30 EVV 9.59% 30 NQU -12.04% The yield ranking was then weighted by 50% while the discount ranking was weighted by 25% (the rankings are assigned to all 141 CEFs, and not only to the top 30). The ranking for volume is not shown above because I was not sure about the time period used by CEFAnalyzer to calculate volume, as alluded to earlier. However, because I did not have time to manually calculate the ADV for 141 CEFs, the CEFAnalyzer data was still used to obtain a volume ranking for the funds, which was weighted by 25%. The weighted rankings were then summed, and the top 30 CEFs with the highest overall ranking are shown below, along with their composite individual ranks. A quick check on Yahoo Finance indicated that the 3-month ADV of these 30 CEFs was above the $1M cut-off (which is actually for the 6-month ADV, but I did not calculate this). Rank Ticker Yield Discount Volume Overall 1 (NYSE: RVT ) 8 8 18 10.50 2 (NYSE: BCX ) 14 1 25 13.50 3 (NYSEMKT: GGN ) 1 42 16 15.00 4 (NYSEMKT: GLO ) 11 7 39 17.00 5 (NYSE: NFJ ) 29 9 15 20.50 6 (NYSE: IGD ) 7 26 48 22.00 7 (NYSE: EXG ) 13 50 13 22.25 8 (NYSE: PCI ) 21 39 11 23.00 9 (NYSE: HIX ) 5 79 12 25.25 10 (NYSEMKT: EVV ) 30 35 17 28.00 11 (NYSE: DPG ) 33 10 38 28.50 12 (NYSE: AOD ) 44 2 24 28.50 13 (NYSE: NHF ) 4 17 96 30.25 14 (NYSE: DSL ) 18 77 8 30.25 15 (NYSE: CEM ) 9 100 5 30.75 16 (NASDAQ: CSQ ) 27 52 19 31.25 17 (NYSE: KYN ) 3 119 2 31.75 18 (NASDAQ: CHI ) 15 96 1 31.75 19 (NYSE: TDF ) 6 15 104 32.75 20 (NYSE: AWP ) 24 3 83 33.50 21 (NYSE: USA ) 31 20 58 35.00 22 (NYSE: BGB ) 36 46 26 36.00 23 (NYSE: NTG ) 25 88 6 36.00 24 (NYSE: FEI ) 22 97 7 37.00 25 (NYSE: BIT ) 47 22 32 37.00 26 (NYSE: UTF ) 54 11 29 37.00 27 (NYSE: BOE ) 40 41 30 37.75 28 (NYSE: GHY ) 39 47 27 38.00 29 (NYSE: ETJ ) 16 56 71 39.75 30 (NYSEMKT: FAX ) 41 5 72 39.75 At this point, I would like to compare notes with reader waldschm85 : I’ve attempted to follow the index methodology and came up with the below holdings from largest to smallest as of the open. How does this compare to your list Stanford Chemist?: BCX, TDF, GGN, RVT, KYN, PCI, NFJ, NTG, IGD, NHF, EXG, CSQ, GLO, DPG, CEM, , FEI, CHY, DSL, CHI, USA, HIX, PHK, GAB, TYG, EAD, ETJ, PTY, ETW, PFN, PCN Comparison of our two lists show that we have 20 out of 30 CEFs in common, which is quite high considering that [i] we did our analyses every days apart and [ii] I used an unspecified volume figure for ADV ranking while waldschm85 may have used a more accurate method. While the weighting methodology is too complex to be reproduced here, it can be noted that last year’s rebalance produced the CEF distribution shown below. The methodology states that no CEF can comprise more than 4.25% of the index. Additionally, the top 15 largest CEFs after last year’s rebalance all had weights of above 4%. I expect the weighting distribution of the 30 CEFs after this year’s rebalance to be quite similar to the last. Additions and deletions (predicted) Here we get to the interesting part! Which funds are completely new, and which will be completely removed? Which CEFs are in both 2015 and 2016 (predicted) portfolios? The following will be performed with my list of top 30 CEFs – obviously results will differ using waldschm85’s list or that of another person’s. CEFs are presented in alphabetical order. Added CEFs: BCX, BOE, CEM, CHI, CSQ, DPG, ETJ, FEI, IGD, KYN, NFJ, NHF, NTG, PCI, RVT, TDF, USA, UTF Removed CEFs: BGY, CHW, EAD, EDD, ERC, ESD, ETY, FPF, HYT, IGD, ISD, JPC, MRC, MMT, NCV, NCZ, PCI CEFs that remain from last year: AOD, AWP, BGB, BIT, DSL, EVV, EXG, FAX, GGN, GHY, GLO, HIX. The information above shows that 18 CEFs will be added to the index and 18 will be removed. 12 CEFs will remain in the index. This is a relatively high turnover but it is not unexpected given the fact that both the distributions and premium/discount values of CEFs can vary wildly. Moreover, given that I did not calculate weightings for the 2016 portfolio, I was unable to predict which CEFs will undergo the highest increases or decreases in allocation. However, it should be stressed that the above lists are only approximate. This is because I only performed a crude replication of the index methodology (specifically, I did not use the six-month ADV for either screening or ranking), and also because of the fact that the actual selection and ranking algorithm will be performed on CEF data at year-end rather than from today. Therefore, I am hesitant to recommend the buying of the CEFs to be added and the selling of CEFs to be removed as a potential strategy to profit from the upcoming rebalance. Use the information above at your own risk. Summary 2015 has not been a good year for CEFL unitholders. First, the botched rebalancing mechanism cause permanent loss of value in the index. Second, CEFL holders received 19.5% less income in 2015 compared to last year (this may be related to the first point). Third, CEFL shifted from a 60:40 equity:bond split in 2014 to a 33:67 equity:bond split this year, just in time for the oil-induced credit contagion to wreck havoc with the high-yield debt CEFs in the index. Certainly, a -32.7% YTD price return and -18.4% YTD total return cannot be described as anything other than disappointing for CEFL unitholders. CEFL data by YCharts Will 2016 bring brighter skies for CEFL? This I cannot say for certain. However, it is interesting to note that the predicted portfolio for 2016 contains several MLP CEFs, namely KYN, CEM, NTG, and FEI, whereas this year’s index contained none. Moreover, a myriad of high-yield bond funds will remain or are newly added to the predicted 2016 portfolio. Thus, it remains likely that the fate of CEFL will remain closely tied with the fortunes of the high-yield credit market for the foreseeable future.

Integrating Water Risk Analysis Into Portfolio Management

By Monika Freyman, CFA My previous article, ” Liquidity Risks of the H2O Variety ,” explored growing investor awareness about water risks within their portfolios and how that awareness plays into their investment decision making. Here, I will examine some of the increasingly sophisticated approaches that investors can take to integrate water risks into portfolio management. My recent survey of 35 institutional investors’ water integration practices found that while many investors think their methods, tools, and databases need to improve and evolve, they also found it worthwhile to integrate water into their research processes. And no wonder. As population pressures create competition for water, global groundwater supplies are declining and climate variability is increasing – leading to longer droughts and more intense flood events. All these factors pose risks that are hard to ignore. Water risk analysis happens at different stages of investment decision making, from the initial asset allocation strategies, to portfolio level analysis, through to the buy/sell decision. For example, one pension fund brought together portfolio managers from different asset classes to study how different markets, investment instruments, and geographic regions are exposed to the global water crisis. A few investors were also consistently analyzing their portfolio’s water risk exposure or its water footprint. Although far from a perfect approach – often missing location specific data or wastewater production metrics – portfolio water footprinting can be helpful in flagging companies and sectors with high water risk exposure relative to a benchmark and highlighting where further analysis is warranted. Various forms of portfolio analysis and attribution software allow managers to run water use metrics versus an index. For an example of water footprinting, see this South African study . At the individual security level, investors identified three critical research steps to obtain a comprehensive picture of water risk exposure: Understand Corporate Water Dependency: This varies by sector and, of course, company, with some industries relying heavily on access to abundant freshwater suppliers directly or in their supply chain. Corporate water dependency is not always easy to assess, but some companies are making the task easier by reporting their water use and wastewater trend data more consistently on their websites, in their annual reports, SEC filings or to data aggregating organizations, such as CDP Worldwide’s Water Program . Combine Water Dependency Data with an Assessment of Water Security: This gives a more comprehensive picture of corporate water risk exposure. A company may have high water needs but have their operations located in relatively water abundant regions. Another company, however, may be operating in regions of high water competition and drought. Such assessments are not simple to perform, but evolving tools, such as World Resources Institute (WRI)’s Aqueduct corporate water risks map , the World Wildlife Fund (WWF)’s Water Risk Filter , and other efforts are seeking to make the task easier. Get a Sense of Corporate Water Risk Awareness and Response: This step is essential because a company may have high water needs and poor water security, but mitigate the risks very effectively by elevating water issues to strategic decision making and putting water management and reporting systems in place. Tools such as The Ceres Aqua Gauge can be used to assess how well companies are managing their water and their exposure to water risks. For a more comprehensive list of third-party water tools and analytics, An Investor Handbook for Water Risk Integration is a helpful resource. Once water risk analysis is conducted on a corporation or security, our research found that fund managers use this information in a variety of ways, from avoiding high water risk industries or companies, to influencing internally created company environment, social, and governance (ESG) scores, to clarifying corporate engagement priorities. Several managers use their corporate water risk assessments to influence or modify financial projections or their weighted average cost of capital assumptions. For example, one fund manager studying companies in Brazil conducted scenario analysis modeling regarding how much the market cap of companies would be impacted if they had to absorb more of the costs of treating their wastewater discharges, especially as drought intensified and communities and regulators were becoming less tolerant of water use and pollution. Once impacts to market cap were assessed and shared with the management of those companies, engagement on those issues was far more pointed and productive. Other managers were trying to get a deeper understanding of the probability of large financial losses due to strategic risks related to water, such as not being able to grow revenue, access new markets, or develop new facilities. No matter what methodology one chooses to deepen water risk analysis practices, the most critical things to keep in mind are that water risks can lead to unlimited financial impact and loss. If a company loses access to water, a community kicks them out of a region due to water concerns, or permission to discharge wastewater is denied, the financial and strategic implications can be immense. For example, Newmont Mining (NYSE: NEM ) has postponed a $5 billion project in Peru due to community concerns over its water practices. In addition, it is important to look at sector specific issues, as water risks related to mining are obviously very different to those in semi-conductor manufacturing and so on. An Investor Handbook for Water Risk Integration includes a sector-specific cheat sheet on these issues. And most important of all: No matter how incomplete your water risk analysis starts off, it will likely provide a better understanding of sector or company risks (and opportunities) – which ultimately should add predictive power to your existing research processes. The goal is not to be perfect in your methods from the outset, but to begin including water risk analysis into your portfolio management practices. Disclaimer: Please note that the content of this site should not be construed as investment advice, nor do the opinions expressed necessarily reflect the views of CFA Institute.