Tag Archives: datetime-local

Beat Weak Q1 Earnings With Revenue-Weighted ETFs

The overall Q1 earnings picture looks bleak, with projected earnings growth deep in the negative territory for the fourth consecutive quarter. In fact, the magnitude of negative revisions over the last three months has been the highest among the recent quarters. Q1 earnings are expected to decline 11.1% versus the 6.4% drop in Q4, as per the Zacks Earnings Trend . However, the projected revenue decline of 2.3% for Q1 is much better than the Q4 revenue decline of 6.6%. Against this backdrop, revenue-weighted ETFs will likely take the lead over earnings-weighted strategies and could be the potential outperformer this earnings season. Why Revenue-Weighted ETFs? First, while a series of headwinds have been weighing on the profitability of companies, the depreciation in the dollar could offer some relief to the top line. As such, many companies could come up with an unexpected growth in revenues in their quarterly reports, giving a boost to the revenue-weighted ETFs. Notably, the ICE U.S. Dollar index, a measure of the dollar’s strength against a basket of currencies, fell to the lowest level in nearly eight months. Second, revenue-weighted funds have outperformed the earnings counterparts in both the short and long-term periods, proving the credibility of the superior weighting methodology. This is because revenues are a better indicator of a company’s financial health. The top line is harder to manipulate or alter on a quarter-by-quarter basis, as opposed to earnings, which can easily be fattened using accounting tricks, thereby leading to inaccuracy. The earnings-weighted ETFs do not reflect the true picture of the company and raise the risk in the portfolio. As a result, tilting toward the revenue metric is a more sensible choice. For investors seeking to do this, there is a small lineup of U.S.-focused ETFs that accomplish this task. Below, we have highlighted the funds that could be great choices for investors seeking to make money from the weak earnings season, while at the same time focus on one of the most important aspects of stock investing. RevenueShares Large Cap ETF (NYSEARCA: RWL ) This fund provides exposure to the top revenue-generating companies within the large-cap segment of the broad U.S. stock market. It consists of the same securities as the S&P 500 Index. Holding 500 stocks in its basket, the fund is concentrated on the top firm – Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT ) – at 4.7% of total assets, while other firms hold no more than 2.4% share. However, the product has a diverse exposure to a number of sectors, with consumer staples, consumer discretionary and financial occupying the top three positions. The ETF has amassed $320.7 million in its asset base and charges 49 bps in annual fees. Volume is light, trading in about 33,000 shares a day. The fund is up 0.8% in the year-to-date time frame. RevenueShares Mid Cap ETF (NYSEARCA: RWK ) This ETF tracks the S&P MidCap 400 Index, providing exposure to the 400 top revenue generators. It is widely spread across components, with none holding more than 3.26% share in the basket. From a sector look, consumer discretionary, industrial and consumer staples take the top three spots with double-digit exposure each. The fund charges 54 bps in fees per year, while it trades in average daily volume of nearly 22,000 shares. It has accumulated $187.7 million in AUM and has added 3.7% so far in the year. RevenueShares Small Cap ETF (NYSEARCA: RWJ ) This fund targets the small-cap segment of the U.S. equity market. It follows the S&P SmallCap 600 Index and holds 600 stocks. RWJ provides a nice balance across a number of components, with each holding less than 2% share in the basket. However, it is slightly tilted toward industrials and the consumer discretionary sector at nearly 22% each, while consumer staples and financials round off the top four. The product has managed assets worth $276.6 million and sees a light volume of about 30,000 shares per day. It charges 54 bps in expense ratio and is up 2.1% year to date. RevenueShares Navellier Overall A-100 ETF (NYSEARCA: RWV ) This ETF is unpopular and illiquid in this space, with AUM of just $7 million and average daily volume of under 1,000 shares. It tracks the Navellier Overall A-100 Index and weighs securities by the top line. The product holds a basket of 100 stocks, which are concentrated on the top 10 holdings at 54.43% of assets. ADRs make up for 23.9% share, while consumer discretionary and consumer staples round off the top three in terms of sector allocation. Unlike the other three, RWV is pretty spread across various market caps, though large caps account for the largest share at 65% of the total. It charges 60 bps in fees per year from investors and gained 0.4% in the year-to-date time frame. Bottom Line Based on the historical performance, the strategy to weigh stocks by revenue seems one of the most effective factors for weighting the index holdings. Though revenue-weighted ETFs cost more, these have the potential to generate higher returns than their earnings counterpart. Original Post

Testing Asset Allocation Results With Random Market Selection

Skill is a slippery concept in finance, courtesy of the shady influence of chance in asset pricing. It’s also an awkward topic in just about every corner of money management because discussing it in detail invariably raises serious doubts about our ability to engineer investment results that are satisfactory much less stellar. But ignored or not, randomness is a factor and perhaps a far more powerful one than generally assumed. In recent posts I’ve explored several facets of how random market behavior can influence portfolio results. In the first installment on the topic we focused on random rebalancing dates. Then we moved on to the results via randomly changing asset weights in asset allocation. Let’s push this testing a step further and build portfolios by randomly selecting asset classes. As before, I’ll use the same 11-fund portfolio that’s globally diversified across key asset classes with a starting date of Dec. 31, 2003. The benchmark strategy is rebalancing the portfolio at the end of each year back to the initial weights, as defined in the table below. Let’s call this our “reasonable” attempt at building an informed asset allocation strategy. For comparison with the element of chance in market pricing, this time the test consists of randomly selecting combinations of asset classes with equal weighting that rebalances the mix back to equal weights every Dec. 31. Note that there are 11 funds in the table above. To test for randomness I’ll use R’s number-crunching prowess to select 1,000 different asset allocation mixes. For instance, one randomly selected portfolio may hold US stocks, US REITs, and commodities and ignore everything else. Another portfolio may hold everything with the lone exception of US junk bonds. (For those who’re interested in the details, I’m selecting time series data via the sample() command with no replacement.) All random portfolios are created as equal weight strategies (if there’s more than one fund) using a start date of Dec. 31, 2003, with results running through yesterday’s close (Apr. 6). The chart below compares the benchmark portfolio (red line) with 1,000 random portfolios as defined above. As you can see, there’s a wide range of outcomes relative to the benchmark portfolio, which increased from 100 to roughly 211 over the test period–i.e., the portfolio more than doubled. By contrast, the best-performing random portfolio surged to more than 300 while the worst performer collapsed to just under 50. Most of the random portfolios, however, dispensed moderately superior or inferior results relative to the benchmark. Let’s review the same data from another perspective by comparing the ending value of the benchmark portfolio (red line) for the sample period with the distribution of ending values for the 1,000 randomly generated strategies (black line). Note that the median outcome for the random portfolios is also included in the chart below (blue line). This is only a toy example, of course, but the results imply that we should be cautious in assigning skill as a key factor for the results of the benchmark portfolio. Dumb luck seems to have played a role too. But let’s not beat ourselves up too much. We can almost certainly avoid the fate of the worst performer among the random strategies by holding a broad set of asset classes. The probability is quite low that everything will fail at the same time, although the events of 2008 pushed that notion to the limit and left more than a few investors with doubts. In any case, the main takeaway is that randomness in market behavior is a factor, and perhaps a dominant one, when it comes to risk and return in the context of portfolio design. That doesn’t mean we should throw up our hands and assume that we have no control over investment outcomes. Rather, the lesson is that a fair amount of what appears to be skill may be something else. In other words, our wetware has a tendency to be confused by randomness–a confusion that we’re all too often eager to facilitate, perhaps unconsciously. Chance can’t be engineered out of the investing process, at least not entirely, but that’s only a minor issue if we’re prepared to deal with this gremlin. The intelligent response is to understand how randomness can influence risk and return and factor that aspect of market behavior into asset allocation analysis and design. Yes, many are fooled by randomness, but that doesn’t have to be every investor’s fate.

4 Best-Rated Franklin Templeton Mutual Funds

With around $763.9 billion assets under management, Franklin Templeton Investments is considered one of the well-known global investment management firms. Founded in 1947, the company offers investment management strategies and integrated risk management solutions to individuals, institutions, pension plans, trusts and partnerships. With over 650 investment professionals and offices in 35 countries, Franklin Templeton provides services in more than 180 countries. It manages a wide range of mutual funds across different categories, including both equity and fixed-income funds. Below, we share with you four top-rated Franklin Templeton mutual funds. Each has earned a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #1 (Strong Buy) and is expected to outperform its peers in the future. To view the Zacks Rank and past performance of all Franklin Templeton mutual funds, investors can click here . Franklin Corefolio Allocation Fund A (MUTF: FTCOX ) seeks growth of capital. It invests an equal portion of its assets in Franklin Flex Cap Growth Fund, Franklin Growth Fund, Mutual Shares Fund and Templeton Growth Fund. Funds in which FTCOX allocates its assets tend to invest in both domestic and foreign securities. The fund has a one-month return of 4%. T. Anthony Coffey is the fund manager of FTCOX since 2003. Templeton Global Bond Fund A (MUTF: TPINX ) invests a large chunk of its assets in bonds, including notes, bills and debentures. It primarily invests in debt securities of governments or those that are issued by government agencies. The fund invests in securities throughout the globe, and may allocate not more than 25% of its assets in securities that are considered below investment-grade. This is a non-diversified fund and has a one-month return of 2%. TPINX has an expense ratio of 0.88%, compared to the category average of 1.03%. Franklin Convertible Securities Fund A (MUTF: FISCX ) seeks maximum total return through appreciation of capital and high level of current income. The fund invests the lion’s share of its assets in convertible securities. Though FISCX may invest all of its assets in non-investment grade securities, it invests a maximum of 10% of its assets in unrated securities or those that are rated below B. It may also invest not more than 20% of its assets in securities including common and preferred stocks. The fund has a one-month return of 1.7%. As of December 2015, FISCX held 75 issues, with 2.55% of its assets invested in Tyson Foods (NYSE: TSN ). Franklin California Tax Free Income Fund A (MUTF: FKTFX ) invests a major portion of its assets in municipal securities that are rated investment-grade and exempted from federal alternative minimum tax as well as California personal income taxes. The fund may invest not more than 20% of its assets that are subject to the federal alternative minimum tax. A maximum of 35% of FKTFX’s assets may be invested in securities of the U.S. territories. It has a one-month return of 0.9%. FKTFX has an expense ratio of 0.58%, compared to the category average of 0.89%. Original Post