Tag Archives: development
What Do Rising Rates Mean For Closed-End Funds?
It’s a misconception that rising rates make it difficult for closed-end funds to deliver competitive results By Christopher Dahlin, UIT Product Strategy and Development Specialist It’s not a stretch to characterize closed-end funds as an often misunderstood investment vehicle. Perhaps that’s because the closed-end fund universe is smaller than those of open-end mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs), or because their market price and net asset value (NAV) frequently fluctuate. Whatever the reason, closed-end funds occasionally get lumped together as one asset class, even though they invest in a wide array of securities across styles and strategies, just as open-end mutual funds and ETFs do. But the prevalent misconception that closed-end funds generally have difficulty delivering competitive returns in a rising rate environment is of particular importance in light of the Federal Reserve’s (Fed) recent rate hike and the likelihood of more to come. Rising rate fears widen discounts Some investors believe that because many closed-end funds employ financial leverage – which is typically tied to short-term interest rates – increased borrowing costs may inhibit total return-producing capabilities. The graph below illustrates this bias. Starting about the time of 2013’s “taper tantrum” – shorthand for the market’s reaction to then-Fed Chairman’s Ben Bernanke’s indication of possible tapering of its stimulus program – and leading up to the Fed’s recent decision to raise the federal funds rate, fears of the first rate increase since 2006 have led to a broad sell-off among closed-end funds, causing discounts to widen considerably. During this period, the average closed-end fund progressed from trading near NAV to approximately 10% discounts, valuations not seen since The Great Recession. Taper tantrum to rate rise: Valuations not seen since The Great Recession Source: Morningstar Traded Fund Center, Jan. 24, 2013, through Dec. 16, 2015. The CEF average discount is a daily unweighted average of the entire domestically-traded closed-end fund universe. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Historical perspective: Returns and rising rates What’s interesting is that, contrary to the recent investor exodus preceding the rate increase, history indicates closed-end funds are capable of producing competitive returns during periods of rising interest rates. Investors need look no further than the last Fed tightening cycle in 2004 for evidence of such closed-end fund outperformance, from both an NAV and market price perspective. As the graph below indicates, closed-end fund valuations widened considerably prior to the Fed’s first 2004 rate increase similar to today’s market. Déjà vu: Closed-end valuations widened prior to the 2004 tightening cycle Source: Morningstar Traded Fund Center, Jan. 1, 2004, through Sept. 29, 2006. The CEF average discount is a daily unweighted average of the entire domestically-traded closed-end fund universe. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. However, entering that tightening cycle with such large discounts actually allowed closed-end fund discounts to subsequently narrow throughout much of the period and produce outperformance across various asset classes on both NAV and market price, as show in the graph below. Narrowing discounts resulted in outperformance during the previous tightening cycle Source: Morningstar Traded Funds Centre. Index returns: S&P 500 Index, BofA Merrill Lynch Municipal Master Index and BofA Merrill Lynch US Corporate Master Index. Closed-end fund returns: US general equity peers, national municipal bond peers and investment-grade corporate bond peers. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. An investment cannot be made directly in an index. Using leverage to enhance returns While borrowing costs did increase for most closed-end funds during the Fed’s last period of increasing interest rates, many managers were able to overcome that obstacle by delivering strong investment returns, as shown above. Although monitoring borrowing costs is an important consideration in closed-end fund investing, it’s not the only variable used to determine the effectiveness of leverage. It’s important to note that leverage is a tool that generally magnifies investment returns; as long as the cost of leverage is less than the total return generated by the investments within the fund, leverage may add positively to performance. When evaluating closed-end funds, it’s important to consider both the return potential of the underlying investments as well as the current premium/discount levels relative to historical levels to determine the current valuation of the closed-end fund itself. Although financial history never repeats itself exactly, it does often rhyme. Many closed-end funds today appear to be following a pattern similar to the last time the Fed initiated a cycle of increasing interest rates. Closed-end fund discounts within many sectors are trading in excess of their historical levels. Depending on an investor’s outlook for a particular asset class, this may be an opportune time to take a closer look at closed-end funds. Important information The S&P 500® Index is an unmanaged index considered representative of the US stock market. The BofA Merrill Lynch Municipals Master Index measures total return on tax-exempt investment grade debt publicly issued by states and US territories, including price and interest income, based on the mix of these bonds in the market. The BofA Merrill Lynch US Corporate Master Index tracks the performance of US dollar-denominated, investment- grade-rated corporate debt publically issued in the US domestic market. A closed-end fund is a publicly traded investment company that raises a fixed amount of capital through an initial public offering (IPO) and is then structured, listed and traded like a stock on a stock exchange. An open-end fund is a type of mutual fund with no restriction on the amount of shares issued; it will continue to issue shares to meet investor demand and will buy back shares when investors wish to sell. Net asset value is the per-share value of open-end and closed-end funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs). Mutual funds’ NAV is computed once a day based on the closing market prices of the securities in the fund’s portfolio’ shares of ETFs and closed-end funds trade at market value, which can be a dollar value above (trading at a premium) or below (trading at a discount) NAV. Financial leverage refers to the use of debt to acquire additional assets. Shares of closed-end funds frequently trade at a discount to their net asset value in the secondary market and the net asset value of closed-end fund shares may decrease. In general, stock values fluctuate, sometimes widely, in response to activities specific to the company as well as general market, economic and political conditions. Fixed-income investments are subject to credit risk of the issuer and the effects of changing interest rates. Interest rate risk refers to the risk that bond prices generally fall as interest rates rise and vice versa. An issuer may be unable to meet interest and/or principal payments, thereby causing its instruments to decrease in value and lowering the issuer’s credit rating. Municipal securities are subject to the risk that legislative or economic conditions could affect an issuer’s ability to make payments of principal and/ or interest. Leverage created from borrowing or certain types of transactions or instruments may impair liquidity, cause positions to be liquidated at an unfavorable time, lose more than the amount invested, or increase volatility. There is no assurance a trust will achieve its investment objective. An investment in these unit investment trusts are subject to market risk, which is the possibility that the market values of securities owned by the trust will decline and that the value of trust units may therefore be less than what you paid for them. Accordingly, you can lose money investing in these trusts. The trust should be considered as part of a long-term investment strategy and you should consider your ability to pursue it by investing in successive trusts, if available. You will realize tax consequences associated with investing from one series to the next. Before investing, carefully read the prospectus and/or summary prospectus and carefully consider the investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. For this and more complete information about the products, visit invesco.com/fundprospectus for a prospectus/summary prospectus. The information provided is for educational purposes only and does not constitute a recommendation of the suitability of any investment strategy for a particular investor. Invesco does not provide tax advice. The tax information contained herein is general and is not exhaustive by nature. Federal and state tax laws are complex and constantly changing. Investors should always consult their own legal or tax professional for information concerning their individual situation. The opinions expressed are those of the authors, are based on current market conditions and are subject to change without notice. These opinions may differ from those of other Invesco investment professionals. NOT FDIC INSURED MAY LOSE VALUE NO BANK GUARANTEE All data provided by Invesco unless otherwise noted. Invesco Distributors, Inc. is the US distributor for Invesco Ltd.’s retail products and collective trust funds. Invesco Advisers, Inc. and other affiliated investment advisers mentioned provide investment advisory services and do not sell securities. Invesco Unit Investment Trusts are distributed by the sponsor, Invesco Capital Markets, Inc., and broker-dealers including Invesco Distributors, Inc. PowerShares® is a registered trademark of Invesco PowerShares Capital Management LLC (Invesco PowerShares). Each entity is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Invesco Ltd. ©2016 Invesco Ltd. All rights reserved. What do rising rates mean for closed-end funds? by Invesco Blog
Can Aerospace And Defense ETFs Protect Your Portfolio In 2016?
Near the end of 2015, President Barack Obama signed a $1.1 trillion budget full of federal spending and tax breaks for fiscal 2016. The new budget deal is a reprieve from situations involving government shutdowns and lengthy stop-gap spending measures through fiscal 2016. It also came as an unusual compromise between the Democrats and the Republicans who have often in the past been in a deadlock. The new budget increases defense spending, a logical step given the increasing unrest in the Middle East and other regions. As threats turn into ever new shapes involving asymmetric, air-sea power, cyber, urban, non-state organizations, and many more, the defense capabilities of a country need to morph accordingly to contain the adversaries. A politically unstable planet has led to various nations stepping up their defense capabilities. The direct beneficiary of a volatile geo-economy is undoubtedly the aerospace and defense players. The U.S. defense firms have particularly tasted success in the ‘rest of the world’. Countries allied to U.S. policy are spending substantially on sophisticated artillery to wage the war against terror and sectarian forces. The crisis has been acutely felt with the meteoric rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a situation that President Obama had once coined “the network of death.” Moreover, per a Treasury Department report, the U.S. budget deficit narrowed to $439 billion in fiscal 2015, the lowest level since 2008, as the economy continued to recover from the financial crisis and revenue growth outpaced a rise in spending. The third-quarter earnings season had seen an earnings beat ratio (percentage of companies coming out with positive surprises) of 77.8% among the aerospace and defense companies. They were not only up against fiscal 2015 budget constraints but were also subject to tepid economic growth throughout the quarter. Growth remained challenged for most of the third quarter, thanks to a strong dollar and weak energy prices. Moreover, persistent slowdown in China deepened global economic woes. In spite of the macro issues, the top contractors, such as, Lockheed Martin Corp. (NYSE: LMT ), The Boeing Co. (NYSE: BA ), Northrop Grumman Corp. (NYSE: NOC ), General Dynamics Corp. (NYSE: GD ), Textron Inc. (NYSE: TXT ), and Raytheon Co. (NYSE: RTN ) held up well on the back of mounting geopolitical risk and strong commercial sales. Though economic data has turned more positive lately and geopolitical uncertainty has improved the outlook of the broader defense space, there are still issues at play. A “disproportionate” cut to modernization and research and development funding could act as a major impediment for the defense industry. In Dec. 2015, Frank Kendall, undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, said in a conference hosted by the Potomac Officers Club that the Pentagon expects to make “disproportionate” cuts to modernization and research and development funding in its fiscal 2017 budget request. This may imply a possible slowdown in production rates of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter jet – the single largest weapons program of the Pentagon. Moreover, the strong U.S. dollar, which is a reflection of growth and monetary policy divergence between the U.S. and its trading partners, is a significant headwind for the defense players. The strong dollar is not only showing up as a currency translation drag, but is also having a bearing on foreign military sales. ETFs to Tap the Sector Below, we have highlighted the aerospace and defense ETFs, which primarily have a U.S. bias. Investing in these funds in basket form greatly reduces the risk of investing in particular stocks. iShares U.S. Aerospace & Defense ETF (NYSEARCA: ITA ) With a Zacks ETF Rank #3 (Hold), ITA has provided a return of 21.53% over the three-year period ended Dec. 31, 2015. This fund tracks the Dow Jones U.S. Aerospace & Defense Index, providing exposure to companies related to the aerospace and defense industry in the U.S. equity markets. This index has a 100% focus on U.S. companies. The fund has an annual dividend yield of 1.10%. The ETF, launched in May 2006, presently has nearly $684.1 million in AUM and is heavily weighted toward the Industrials sector (97%) with the balance going to Technology. This fund holds 38 stocks with about 55.01% invested in the top 10 holdings. Among individual holdings, the top stocks in ITA include Boeing, United Technologies Corp. (NYSE: UTX ) and Lockheed Martin comprising 7.82%, 7.73% and 6.83%, respectively, of total net assets. With a tilt toward large-cap companies, this fund charges investors 43 basis points a year. PowerShares Aerospace & Defense Portfolio ETF (NYSEARCA: PPA ) This ETF tracks the SPADE Defense Index, holding 53 securities in its basket and has an expense ratio – an annual fee – of 0.66%. The Index is designed to identify a group of companies involved in the development, manufacturing, operations and support of U.S. defense, homeland security and aerospace operations. The index was launched in October 2005. This fund has a Zacks Rank #3 and is highly focused on U.S companies (100%). The fund has so far managed assets of $299.7 million with a focus on large-cap companies. The top 10 companies hold 53.25% share of total net assets. In terms of holdings, Lockheed Martin, Honeywell International Inc. (NYSE: HON ) and United Technologies occupy the top three positions in the basket comprising 6.54%, 6.31% and 6.30%, respectively, of total net assets. SPDR S&P Aerospace & Defense ETF (NYSEARCA: XAR ) This fund follows the S&P Aerospace & Defense Select Industry Index, focusing on the aerospace and defense sector of the S&P Total Market Index. The Index is one of the 19 S&P Select Industry Indices, each designed to measure the performance of a narrow sub-industry or group of sub-industries as defined by the Global Industry Classification Standards. With a Zacks ETF Rank #3, this fund charges investors just 35 basis points a year in fees for its exposure. Hence, it is considered the cheapest option in the aerospace and defense ETF market. With holdings of 34 stocks, the top spots are taken up by Orbital ATK Inc. (NYSE: OA ), Transdigm Group Incorporated (NYSE: TDG ) and Honeywell International Inc. comprising 4.27%, 4.03% and 4.01%, respectively, of total net assets. Launched in September 2011, XAR has 100% focus on U.S companies. The fund has managed assets of $160 million so far and has an annual dividend yield of 1.00%. The top 10 companies hold 40.03% share of total net assets. To Sum Up Despite global headwinds, the defense biggies have been proactive in meeting evolving customer needs, particularly for affordable products, besides engaging in corporate restructuring. Moreover, tensions arising out of geopolitical conflict around the globe and demand for defense products in the Middle East and other Asian nations will ensure a steady inflow of foreign contracts. In this context, the above-mentioned ETFs with a favorable Zacks ETF Rank might be a good idea to play defense. Original Post