Tag Archives: datetime-local

Outperforming Buy And Hold Does Not Prove Skill

It is common in finance to compare returns of market timing strategies to buy and hold returns. Although this is useful in determining any excess returns achieved by the timing strategy, it is far from a proof of skill. This is because, depending on the path prices follow, random traders may achieve returns much higher than buy and hold. I will approach this problem by providing two examples that are based on simulating random traders who use a fair coin to purchase shares in SPY (NYSEARCA: SPY ) at the close of a trading day and when heads show up. The shares are sold at the close of a day when tails show up and this is repeated for the whole price history under consideration. Then, the simulation is repeated 20,000 times to get a distribution of the net return of all random traders. Starting capital is $100K and commission is $0.01 per share. Equity is fully invested. Results for 2013 Click to enlarge The SPY buy and hold total return for 2013 was about 26.45%. It is shown in the results above that the return for significance at the 5% level is about 22%, which means that this return is better than the return of 95% of random traders. In this case, a return of a market timing strategy below the buy and hold but above 22% can be an indication of skill since it is significant at the 5% level or better. Also note that more than 97% of random long traders made a profit in 2013 due to the strong uptrend. Results for 2015 Click to enlarge Although the SPY buy and hold total return for 2015 was just 1.3%, the minimum significant return for comparison to random traders was about 14%! A market timing strategy would have to generate a return of more than 14% to prove that it was better than 95% of random traders, or significant at the 5% level. About half of the random long traders made a net profit in 2015, still better than casino odds of course. Therefore, even a return of 10% would not be sufficient for proving skill in this case, as it would not be significant at the 5% level. Therefore, comparing to buy and hold for proving skill may not make sense depending on the path prices follow. During strong uptrends, the minimum significant return to support skill may be closer to buy and hold but when markets consolidate it may be much higher because there are always those lucky random traders that skew the distribution of returns. As a corollary, comparing average returns to buy and hold returns may make no sense at all since the difficulty of generating excess alpha varies from year to year. Original article 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. Additional disclosure: Analysis program: Price Action Lab

Closed-End Funds: Still A Bargain

In a world in which very little is cheap and most mainstream stocks and bonds offer little in the way of expected returns, closed-end funds have been a fantastic source of value. I’ve been writing about closed-end funds for the better part of a year (see Closed-End Bond Funds Near Their Deepest Discounts Since 2008 ) and I’ve been very pleased with their performance in an otherwise choppy, directionless market. Yet I’ve noticed that some of the fantastic bargains I saw a year ago are starting to dry up. Or at least they’re not quite as juicy as they were. The 15% discounts to net asset value are now closer to about 10%. Though it may simply be a case of me getting spoiled. By any historical standard, closed-end funds are still exceptionally well priced. Patrick Galley, manager of the Rivernorth DoubleLine Strategic Income Fund, gave his thoughts to Barron’s this past week. (See 4 Closed-End Funds Yielding Up to 9% ): Q: Closed-end fund discounts have come in a lot since the beginning of the year. Aren’t they getting less attractive in general? A: Actually, closed-end fund discounts are still pretty attractive overall. In January and February they got so wide it was reminiscent of 2008. Fear was high and investors were dumping assets. Discounts got to the 98th percentile of the widest levels they’ve reached going back to 1996. They narrowed in March and April. Now they are at the 76th percentile of the widest levels. The averages are very much skewed by the muni-bond sector. Munis have had a good run and everyone wants them. Investors are chasing those past returns. They aren’t even looking at discounts and premiums. Meanwhile, taxable fixed-income spreads are still wide. As the examples I gave you show, a lot of them are still double-digit discount opportunities. 76th percentile is nothing to complain about. Sure, it was a lot more fun buying them at 2008-caliber discounts. But that’s really not normal, and every buying opportunity can’t be that good. So for the time being, I’ll plan on maintaining a solid allocation to closed-end funds in my Dividend Growth portfolio. The portfolio is up 13.5% year to date , and closed-end funds have certainly played their part in achieving those returns. This article first appeared on Sizemore Insights as Closed-End Funds: Still a Bargain Disclaimer : This site is for informational purposes only and should not be considered specific investment advice or as a solicitation to buy or sell any securities. Sizemore Capital personnel and clients will often have an interest in the securities mentioned. There is risk in any investment in traded securities, and all Sizemore Capital investment strategies have the possibility of loss. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Millennials: Here’s Your Best 2016 Investment Portfolio

Congratulations! Here you are. A successful millennial. For the sake of argument, we are going to put you in the middle of this group, generally described as being born roughly between 1980 and 2000. We’ll stipulate that you are born in 1990, so graduated college in 2012 and are now four years into your working career. At 26 years of age, you have a long and bright working future ahead of you. You are clever enough to know that you should start investing now. At the same time, you are not all about money. You don’t want to be a slave to your investments, you want your investments to be a slave to you, and give you both the time and freedom to devote to the things that are important to you. Click to enlarge I’ll cut right to the chase. There are a ton of investment strategies from which you can choose. Here is the one I would suggest. First, open a brokerage account at Fidelity Investments. Second, buy these six ETFs, in the weightings shown: 45% – iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF (NYSEARCA: ITOT ) 10% – iShares Core High Dividend ETF (NYSEARCA: HDV ) 30% – iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF (NYSEARCA: IEFA ) 5% – iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (NYSEARCA: IEMG ) 5% – iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: AGG ) 5% – iShares TIPS Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: TIP ) Third, set up a schedule to rebalance regularly back to these weightings. That’s it. We’re done. I told you I would keep this brief. You can simply stop right here and implement the plan that I suggest. I’m guessing, though, that you won’t. You’d like to know a little more. OK, then. Feel free to read as little or much of what comes next as you wish. I’ll share a few basic thoughts, and then provide some links to yet further reading if you so desire. What’s So Great About This Portfolio? Simplicity: Containing only six ETFs, this portfolio will be extremely simple to both maintain and track. However, simple does not mean simplistic. I’ll talk about this a little more in the “diversification” section below. Low Costs: The cost, or overhead, is extremely small. Simply put, the greater the expenses your portfolio incurs, the less that makes it into your pocket. If you follow the links to the ETFs I provided above, you will notice that they sport expense ratios of between .03% and .20%. At the allocations I suggest, I calculate that your overall weighted expense ratio comes out to .0835%. That’s right. About eight hundredths of one percent. The rest? Into your pockets, to compound and grow. Zero Commissions: This is an important one. Likely, you will want to set up a regular investment plan, investing small incremental amounts on a regular basis. While ETFs are a great investment vehicle, if you have to pay $8-10 for every transaction, you lose the benefits very quickly. The ETFs I suggest are included in the 70 iShares ETFs that Fidelity allows you to trade commission-free. Diversification: Within the portfolio, you will gain exposure to both domestic and foreign stocks (including a modest allocation to emerging markets), bonds, and TIPS (Treasury Inflation Protected Securities). The weightings I suggest are relatively aggressive; appropriate for someone in their mid-20s to approximately 30. At the same time, I am including an element of defensiveness in the portfolio by including a small weighting directed at quality, dividend-paying stocks, as well as bonds and TIPS. These selections will both generate a little income that you can reinvest over time as well as offer a measure of protection should the market experience a steep decline; allowing you to rebalance the portfolio. Background and Further Reading Finally, let me share a little background information regarding how I came to this specific recommendation, as well as links to some further reading. Late last year, as part of my work as a contributor for Seeking Alpha, I researched the 2016 investment outlooks of several respected investment houses. Using that research as a guide, I created The ETF Monkey 2016 Model Portfolio . Next, I set up and tracked three iterations of the portfolio: Vanguard , Fidelity , and Charles Schwab . While, as I will explain below, I chose to feature Fidelity, you could follow the basic principles set out in this article and set up your portfolio at either Vanguard or Charles Schwab. The key, of course, would be to select ETFs that you could trade commission-free in each case. When I set up the portfolio, I must admit that my initial bias was in favor of Vanguard. Vanguard is a legendary provider, and offers a large selection of ETFs with some of the most competitive expense ratios in the marketplace. However, as I reported in my Q1 update , the Fidelity implementation was actually the top performer of the three. This slight outperformance has continued as of the date I sat down to write this article. Therefore, I decided to use Fidelity as my provider of choice. Finally, here is a little more detail on some recent changes to the iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF , the largest component of my recommended portfolio, as well as some thoughts on portfolio rebalancing . I hope this brief article has offered a helpful starting point. Feel free to drop your questions and comments below, and I will do my best to answer them. Disclosure: I am not a registered investment advisor or broker/dealer. Readers are cautioned that the material contained herein should be used solely for informational purposes, and are encouraged to consult with their financial and/or tax advisor respecting the applicability of this information to their personal circumstances. Investing involves risk, including the loss of principal. Readers are solely responsible for their own investment decisions.