Tag Archives: etf-hub

5 Buy Ranked Small Cap Growth Mutual Funds To Invest In

Growth funds become a natural choice for investors when capital appreciation over the long term takes precedence over dividend payouts. These funds focus on realizing an appreciable amount of capital growth by investing in stocks of firms whose value is projected to rise over the long term. Small cap funds are a good choice for investors seeking diversification across different sectors and companies. Investors with a high risk appetite should invest in these funds. Small cap funds generally invest in companies having market cap lower than $2 billion. The companies, smaller in size, offer growth potential and their market capitalization may increase subsequently. Below we will share with you 5 buy rated small cap growth mutual funds. Each has earned a Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) or a Zacks #2 Rank (Buy), as we expect these mutual funds to outperform their peers in the future. PNC Multi Factor Small Cap Growth A (MUTF: PLWAX ) seeks capital growth over the long run. PLWAX invests a lion’s share of its assets in small cap companies. The market capitalizations of these companies are identical to the size of the companies listed in the Russell 2000 Growth Index or less than the past three years average of the largest capitalization company listed in the index. The PNC Multi Factor Small Cap Growth A fund has returned 21.5% over the last one year. PLWAX carries an annual expense ratio of 1.12% as compared to category average of 1.34%. BlackRock Small Cap Growth Equity Investor A (MUTF: CSGEX ) invests a major portion of its assets in domestic small cap companies. CSGEX defines small cap companies as those which are having market capitulation size within the range of the Russell 2000 Index. CSGEX may also consider IPOs for potential investment. The BlackRock Small Cap Growth Equity Investor A fund has returned 15.6% over the last one year. Travis Cooke is the fund manager and has managed CSGEX since 2013. Hartford SmallCap Growth A (MUTF: HSLAX ) seeks capital growth over the long run. HSLAX invests a lion’s share of its assets in small cap companies having market capitalizations similar to those included in the Russell 2000 and S&P SmallCap 600 Indices. HSLAX maintains a multi-portfolio manager structure. HSLAX may invest a maximum of 20% of its assets in non-dollar denominated securities of companies located in foreign land. The Hartford SmallCap Growth A fund has returned 19.4% in the last one year. As of June 2015, HSLAX held 350 issues with 1.96% of its assets invested in iShares Russell 2000 Growth. Harbor Small Cap Growth Investor (MUTF: HISGX ) mostly invests in small cap companies, whose market capitalization lies within the range of the Russell 2000 Growth Index. HISGX invests a large portion of its assets in a diversified portfolio of equity securities of around 75 to 85 small cap companies. The Harbor Small Cap Growth Investor fund has returned 20.7% over the last one year. HISGX has an expense ratio of 1.2% as compared to category average of 1.34%. Invesco Small Cap Discovery A (MUTF: VASCX ) seeks capital appreciation. VASCX invests heavily in small cap companies that are believed to have strong capital growth prospect. VASCX may allocate a maximum of 25% of its assets in foreign companies. The Invesco Small Cap Discovery A fund has returned 19.3% over the last one year. As of June 2015, VASCX held 105 issues with 1.64% of its assets invested in Cavium Inc.

3 Reasons Why Risk Is Exiting The Debate Stage

Investors tend to ignore financial markets until they really start to move significantly in one direction or the other. Ironically, investors who wait to buy undervalued securities when the technical backdrop is dramatically improving tend to miss out on sensible risk-taking opportunities. Don’t let the flatness fool you; risk-taking is subsiding and risk-aversion is gaining. More than a handful of people asked me if I would be watching the big debate. 10 candidates. One stage. Which politician will emerge as the clear-cut favorite to win the Republican party nomination? It may surprise some folks, but I have zero interest in the made-for-television event. Each individual will receive about as much air time as Bethe Correia earned in her UFC Title fight against Ronda Rousey. (America’s superstar dropped the Brazilian fighter in 34 seconds.) From my vantage point, a debate exists when two individuals (or two unique groups) express vastly different opinions. And I would be intrigued by an actual match-up with actual position distinctions. Scores of presidential hopefuls from one side of the aisle looking to land a sound byte? I’d rather watch multiple reruns of ESPN’s SportsCenter. In other words, I will tune in when it’s Walker v. Kasich and Hillary versus Joe. (I am name-dropping, not predicting.) In the same way that I might ignore political theater until it really starts to matter, investors tend to ignore financial markets until they really start to matter. And by really start to matter, I mean move significantly in one direction or the other. Ironically, investors who wait to buy undervalued securities when the technical backdrop is dramatically improving tend to miss out on sensible risk-taking opportunities. In the same vein, those who wait to reduce exposure to extremely overvalued stocks when the technical backdrop is weakening tend to miss out on sensible risk-reduction opportunities. What’s more, theoretical buy-n-holders shift to panicky sellers when the emotional pain of severe losses overwhelm them. Although the Dow is slightly negative in 2015, and the S&P 500 is slightly positive, risk has already been sneaking out the back door. Don’t let the flatness fool you; don’t be misled by ‘journalists’ with political agendas. Risk-taking is subsiding and risk-aversion is gaining. Here are three reasons why risk has been exiting the debate stage: 1. The Recovery Is Stalling . Bad news on the economy had been good news throughout the six-and-a-half year stock bull. The reason? The Fed maintained emergency level policies of quantitative easing (i.e., QE1, QE2, Operation Twist, QE3) as well as zero percent overnight lending rates. Today, however, the Fed desperately wants to flip the narrative such that committee members can claim the economy is healthy enough for rate tightening. The data suggest otherwise. For example, Wednesday’s ADP report of 185,000 jobs in July was 20% lower than July of 2014 a year earlier. It is also the lowest headline ADP number since Q1 2014 when an unusually rough winter shouldered the blame. This goes along with the worst wage growth since data have been kept (0.2%), U-6 unemployment between 10.8% ( BLS ) and 14.6% (Gallup), as well as the lowest percentage of employees participating in the working-aged labor pool (62.7%) since 1977. It gets worse. Factory orders have only experienced month-over-month growth in 3 of the last 12 months. Year-over-year, export activity is down 6.6%. Business spending via capital expenditures – dollars used to acquire or upgrade plants, equipment, property and other physical assets – has plummeted. Corporate revenue (sales) will be negative for the second consecutive quarter, perhaps contracting -3.8% in Q2 per FactSet. What’s more, the Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence sub-indexes are dismal; the future expectations gauge is falling at a faster month-over-month clip than the present situation measure. Consumer spending is sinking as well. In sum, risk aversion as well as outright bearish downturns are frequently associated with recessionary pressures. Is a recession imminent? Maybe not. Yet risk-off movement in the financial markets reflect understandable concerns that the U.S. economy may not be capable of absorbing multiple rounds of Federal Reserve tightening. 2. Commodities Are Tanking . One could easily wrap the commodities picture up into discussions about the U.S. economy. That said, I am pulling the topic out into a separate header because it reflects economic woes around the world. As it stands, the IMF’s most recent projections for global output in 2015 represent the slowest annual ‘expansion’ in four years. And the waning use of raw materials is a big part of the IMF’s anemic outlook as well as the collapse in commodity prices. For a year now, a wide variety of analysts have endeavored to explain the oil price decline in positive terms. They’ve been wrong. Consumers and businesses are not spending their energy savings. Meanwhile, energy companies are abandoning projects, laying off high-paying employees and witnessing a dramatic exodus from their stock shares. The Energy Select Sector SPDR ETF (NYSEARCA: XLE ) has depreciated by more than 30% already. Similarly, many of the world’s emerging markets (and some developed markets) depend upon the extraction of materials and natural resources. Granted, the U.S. stock market has been an island unto itself since 2011. However, no market is an island unto itself indefinitely. The Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets ETF (NYSEARCA: VWO ) is reaching for 52-week lows. The PowerShares DB Commodity Index Tracking ETF (NYSEARCA: DBC ) is already there. And in the last two U.S. recessions, year-over-year commodity depreciation via the Core CRB Commodity Index led forward S&P earnings estimates significantly lower. 3. ‘Technicals’ Are Faltering . Overvalued equities can become even more overvalued, particularly when authorities are easing the rate reins and/or an economy is expanding at a brisk pace. In fact, expensive stocks often become even pricier before market participants typically become squeamish. Yet current technical data show that – across the entire risk spectrum – the smarter money may be seeking safer pastures. What’s more, authorities are talking about tightening at a time when the economy is not expanding briskly. In the bond market, the spread between the Composite Corporate Bond Rate (CCBR) and the 10-year yield is widening. That is a sign of risk aversion. Similarly, investment grade treasuries are witnessing higher highs and higher lows (bullish) whereas the iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: HYG ) has seen lower highs and lower lows (bearish). These developments are also signs of risk leaving the room before the elephant. In equities, more stocks in the S&P 500 are below their long-term moving average (200-day) than above them. This is coming form a place where 85% of the components had been in technical uptrends. Historically speaking, this kind of narrowing in market breadth is typically associated with an eventual stock benchmark correction. Additionally, as I had identified in my commentary one week ago , the New York Stock Exchange Advance Decline Line (A/D) has a strong track record as a leading indicator of corrections/bears. It recently crossed below its 200-day for the first time in four years (as it did prior to the euro-zone crisis in 2011). In addition, decliners have been pressuring and outpacing advancers regularly since the beginning of May. Granted, the Dow Jones Industrials (DJI) Average and the Dow Jones Transportations (DJT) Average may not be as important as the S&P 500 in identifying technical breakdowns. (Dow Theorists would disagree with me on that.) Nevertheless, when the DJI and DJT are both signalling the potential for longer-term downtrends, there’s something going on. What’s going on? Risk is quietly tip-toeing off the stage. I’ve been telling folks for several months to rethink partying like it’s 1999 . Otherwise, you may find that you overstayed your welcome and that the punch bowl is empty. Is it too late to ratchet down the risk? Hardly. When sky-high valuations meet with weakness in market internals, a 65% growth/35% income investor might make a strategic shift toward 50% large-cap and mid-cap equity/30% investment-grade income/20% cash. You’ve reduced equity risk by avoiding small companies; you’ve reduced income risk by exiting higher-yielding junk. And you’ve given yourself the cash that put you in the right frame of mind to be able to “buy lower” in the next correction. Disclosure: Gary Gordon, MS, CFP is the president of Pacific Park Financial, Inc., a Registered Investment Adviser with the SEC. Gary Gordon, Pacific Park Financial, Inc, and/or its clients may hold positions in the ETFs, mutual funds, and/or any investment asset mentioned above. The commentary does not constitute individualized investment advice. The opinions offered herein are not personalized recommendations to buy, sell or hold securities. At times, issuers of exchange-traded products compensate Pacific Park Financial, Inc. or its subsidiaries for advertising at the ETF Expert web site. ETF Expert content is created independently of any advertising relationships.

Upcoming Political Risks For TransCanada Corp And The Keystone XL Pipeline

Summary Upcoming Canadian Federal Elections present significant risks for TransCanada Corp. The proposed Keystone XL and Energy East Pipeline projects will face strong headwinds if the NDP wins a minority. Expect increased short term volatility as these events unwind and the possible outcomes become more clear to investors. TransCanada Corporation (NYSE: TRP ) is a Canadian midstream oil and gas company operating in three main business segments: Natural Gas Pipelines, Liquids (crude) Pipelines and Energy. Its pipeline operations extend from Canada to the U.S and Mexico. Revenue breakdown for 2014 between these segments can be seen bellow: (click to enlarge) ( 2014 Annual Report ) TRP currently has two large proposed pipeline projects that have created a lot of public reaction recently and have become hot topic for the media and politicians from both the U.S and Canada. These projects are the Keystone XL and Energy East pipelines. With the Canadian Federal election to be held on October 19th, 2015, it is critical to evaluate each party’s stance on these two proposed projects. Keystone XL Pipeline Overview: The Keystone XL pipeline would transport crude oil for Alberta to Nebraska, expanding the current and operational Keystone Pipeline System. The proposed pipeline would measure 1,897 km long, possess a capacity of 830,000 barrels of oil per day and is estimated to cost $8 billion with $2.4 billion already invested. The pipeline faces a difficult regulatory environment. Since it crosses international borders between Canada and the United States, it is required to obtain a Presidential Permit from the Department of State. The Permit is awarded if the proposed Project serves the national interest, which is a very broad term and requires the consideration of many factors such as energy security, environmental, cultural and economic impacts. Energy East Pipeline Overview: The Energy East Pipeline would transport crude oil from Alberta and Saskatchewan to the eastern Canadian refineries as well as other export markets. In terms of length, this pipeline would span 4,600 km, have a capacity of 1.1 million barrels per day and is estimated to cost $12 billion. The regulatory environment for this project is administered by the NEB (National Energy Board) in Canada, which likely stands to approve the project providing the environmental requirements are met and political support remains. Upcoming Canadian Elections: The outcome of the upcoming Canadian Federal Elections slated for October 19th 2015 will have a significant impact on the likelihood of the Keystone XL and Energy East pipelines being completed. While both Harper’s Conservative party and Trudeau’s Liberals support both projects, the NDP led by Tom Mulcair is currently opposed. While the NDP has yet to win a federal election, this year may be its best chance yet. After a break through election in 2011 in which the NDP replaced the Liberals as the current opposition party. To add to the fact, the Alberta NDP recently won the Albertan provincial election, widely considered a Conservative stronghold and native land of Stephen Harper. The Tory’s have called an early election with the hopes of outspending their opponents. New rules introduced increase the spending limit for longer campaigns. The hope is that this will allow them to outspend the NDP and Liberals on advertising during the critical final weeks leading to the election. While still extremely early in the race, it is worth noting that the NDP currently holds a small but growing lead over the Tories. (click to enlarge) Source: CBC.ca . United States Political Front: As for the U.S political front, Obama has strongly opposed the Keystone XL project and it is extremely unlikely this position will change during the remainder of his term in office. TRP’s hopes lie with the next administration from which they can expect a better odds that they will receive support. Hillary Clinton recently refused to provide a direct answer to whether or not she supports the Project, stating that her current position and the potential for he involvement in a possible lawsuit prevents it. While she is unable to provide any comments at this time, her refusal to offer outright support for Obama on this issue signals that she may be more supportive of the project. As for the Republicans, Jeb Bush tweeted his support : “Keystone is a no-brainer. Moves us toward energy independence & creates jobs. President Obama must stop playing politics & sign the bill.” The economic benefits of the project throughout the U.S would make it difficult for any Republican candidate to oppose it. Conclusion: The impact of an NDP victory in the upcoming Canadian Federal Election presents a significant risk for TransCanada Corp. Two of TRP’s flagship pipeline projects, Keystone XL and Energy East, currently supported by the Tories, are strongly opposed by the NDP. While TRP appears to be a sound value play in the midstream O&G market, offering a juicy 4.31% yield and stable operating cash flows, the upcoming political risks should not be underestimated. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.