Tag Archives: datetime-local

The Best And Worst Of January: Managed Futures

Managed futures mutual funds and ETFs bounced back in January after having a tough month in December. In the first month of 2016, managed futures funds, including “CTAs” (commodity trading advisors), averaged gains of 2.05%. This, in a month when U.S. stocks, commodities and high-yield bonds all saw large drawdowns. Managed futures strategies have often been referred to as “crisis alpha”, and January’s performance shows why they have been labeled as such. Over the three years ending January 31, funds in the category generated average annualized returns of +3.36%. These returns were comprised of -1.79% annualized alpha and 0.58 beta relative to Credit Suisse Managed Futures Liquid TR USD Index. Top Performers in January The three best-performing managed futures mutual funds in January were: Equinox Funds dominated the managed futures category in January, occupying all three of the top spots. EBCIX, EQIPX, and MHFAX generated respective one-month gains of 6.81%, 6.17%, and 6.09% in January, greatly outperforming the category average of 2.05% Of the three funds, only MHFAX has been around for at least three years, and its three-year annualized returns through January 31 stood at +4.64%, ranking in the top 30% of the category. The fund’s three-year Sharpe ratio, a measure of risk-adjusted returns, was 0.51, compared to 0.34 for the category. Its three-year standard deviation, measuring volatility, stood at 9.69%, compared to the category average of 9.01%. MHFAX’s three-year alpha of -1.79% was equal to the category average, while its beta of 0.73 was higher than the category’s 0.58. Category leader EBCIX and #2 fund EQIPX launched in June 2014 and July 2015, respectively. EBCIX had one-year returns of 6.02% through January 31, ranking in the top 8% of the category. EQIPX was launched too recently for annual returns, but its six-month gains through January 31 stood at 4.69%, ranking in the top 6% of the category. Worst Performers in January The three worst-performing managed futures mutual funds in January were: TVTAX was by far January’s worst-performing managed futures fund, returning -7.02%. The fund, which launched in November 2014, had one-year returns of -13.93% through January 31, ranking in the bottom 7% of the category. Although they were the second- and third-worst performers in the category, FCMLX and DNASX’s January losses were considerably lighter than that of TVTAX, at 2.95% and 2.96%, respectively. Both FCMLX and DNASX launched long enough ago to have three-year returns, alphas, betas, Sharpe ratios, and standard deviations: FCMLX had three-year annualized losses of 2.61%, with a three-year alpha of -5.99%, beta of -0.03, a Sharpe ratio of -0.19, and standard deviation of 11.03%. DNASX’s respective stats were -1.42%, -1.09%, 0.42, -0.24, and 5.54%. Past performance does not necessarily predict future results. Jason Seagraves contributed to this article.

Are ETFs Made Up Of CEFs Worth Owning?

While we are huge proponents of leveraging low cost and liquid ETFs for virtually every asset class ; ETFs that invest in closed-end funds (CEFS) are a different story altogether. The two funds that have garnered the most investor attention in this space are the PowerShares Closed End Fund Composite ETF (NYSEARCA: PCEF ) and the Yieldshares High Income ETF (NYSEARCA: YYY ) . Both contain a seemingly diverse array of underlying asset classes, sectors, and strategies. While both funds’ actual management expense ratio of 0.50% sounds reasonable, the issue is that you’re also paying for active management and leverage borrowing costs on an individual fund level. While that isn’t an immediate red flag, the largest issue I see with ETFs that purely invest in CEFs is that the index construction methodology doesn’t take into account the fundamental propensities of the underlying holdings. For example, these funds may have overlapping strategies spread across multiple managers, which also have varying fundamental views on portfolio strategy . Envision it this way, one manager may love a specific sector of the fixed-income market, such as emerging market bonds, another manager avoids them like the plague. So while one manager may be proven right, the other is wrong, and whatever benefit you would have received is sorely cancelled out. What’s worse is that you continue to pay both managers a fee regardless. When you sum up all the instances where that scenario happens in each individual CEF, all of the exotic portfolio management themes and talent is quickly stripped away. Meaning, your returns are doomed to plod along with the index and ultimately the mean average of the entire asset class. It’s a classic case of over-diversification. Oddly enough, that fact alone is the primary marketing tactic to attract investors to these funds; you remove individual fund risk. However, if an investor simply wants index returns from a complicated asset class they may not fully understand, CEFs are the last place I would suggest they invest in. There are multiple layers of complex derivatives, hedging, and active management strategies in play. On top of individual fund corporate actions, premium and discount analysis, and earnings reports. Lastly, probably the most dangerous element to CEF investing flies under the radar: leverage. Instead, it is my opinion that investors should equip themselves with basic knowledge on evaluating the attractiveness of a group of closed-end funds, and build a cohesive portfolio made of equities and fixed-income. They will have inherent diversification at the fund level, and probably build a better knowledge of how CEFs work in the process. They also stand the chance for better performance and paying lower fees overall. 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.

Be A Proactive Investor

During volatile times in the market, like what we have been experiencing since May, it’s difficult to see through the disparaging news headlines (Oil is Collapsing! Bear Market in Stocks! US Is In A Recession!) and to not lose the forest for the trees. Investing is a long-term game with seemingly unlimited number of opportunities and it’s imperative as an investor to not get caught up in the day-to-day swings (and explanations) of the stock market. It’s times like this where a word like “casino” gets tossed around as a synonym for the stock market. And you know what, in the short run, the market is a lot like a casino. One day the market is up, the next day the market is down. Don’t believe me since it feels like the market has been down a whole lot more than it has been up lately? Well, would you be surprised to know that over the past 200-days developed world equities have been up 47% of the days and down 53% of the days. Pretty close to a 50-50 coin flip, right? Percentage Of Positive Performance Days For Stocks Proactive Investor But long-term investors know that the stock market isn’t really like a casino at all. The “payoff odds” in the stock market are not static like they are in a casino. Hitting the right number in roulette will always pay 35:1 but investing in the right stock could return 10% or it could return 10,000%. Therefore, it’s key to think of investing in terms of probabilities instead of binary outcomes. Investing is not about calling the top or bottom in the market exactly right. It’s about understanding if there are more positive investment opportunities in the market than there are negative opportunities (or vice versa). Put another way, it’s about properly identifying where the market currently falls on the risk/reward spectrum. This way, you as an investor can be proactive rather reactive to changes in the market. We have known for quite some time that this is the longest running cyclical bull market in a secular bear market , so a selloff like the one we are in now was bound to happen sometime. And in the long term, that is actually great news for investors because future returns have undoubtedly improved thanks to the opportunity to buy stocks on “sale.” But this is where investor psychology really comes into play. If your risk antennae was not tuned up to the fact that the probability of a selloff had increased (i.e. the opportunity set had shifted from more buying opportunities to more selling opportunities), then it’s really difficult to realize after a 15-20% decline that the opportunity set is ALREADY shifting again back into your favor. You are reacting to the declining market and when you are reacting, it’s hard to make the correct rational decision. To sell stocks into a declining market is always hard because in the back of your mind you know you missed out on the optimal time to get out and it’s so easy to tell yourself “I’ll sell out of stock XYZ just as soon as it rises 5-10%.” Of course, in a slide like we are in now, it’s very rare for the market to ever give you that 5-10% gain, and so you sit on the underperforming stock far longer than you would have liked. However, if an investor is proactive in identifying where we currently sit on the risk/reward spectrum, there is a very good chance that that investor had begun to shift his or her portfolio into more defensive sectors and perhaps into cash as well. While they would have been undoubtedly early and missed out on some of the gain back in May, they are already mentally prepared to begin to take advantage of some of the positive opportunities that are presenting themselves in this correction. This is why at Gavekal Capital, we focus so much on risk management. Yes, risk management is about protecting the downside. But more so, it’s about being proactive in your investment process so that when the risk/reward spectrum flips in your favor you are ready to take advantage of it and capture the gains in your portfolio. Disclosure: None.