Fidelity Equity Dividend Income: I’d Rather Own A CEF
FEQTX changed managers in 2011 looking to spruce up performance. Although there has been improvement, the results have been middling. If you are looking for income, you might be better off with a CEF. Mutual funds are generally the top-of-mind way for investors to quickly gain access to professional management. However, the Fidelity Equity Dividend Income (MUTF: FEQTX ) shows why you need to be cautious when you go down this route. In the end, if you are looking for dividend income, there are better options out there. Turning to a new leader FEQTX changed managers in late 2011 with the goal of shaking things up at a fund that had been lagging and, generally, not living up to its name. That means that 2011 and part of 2012 were really a transition period as new manager Scott Offen put his mark on the fund. So he’s got about three years of performance under his belt with a portfolio he created. The fund’s objective is reasonable income and capital appreciation. Reasonable income is defined as a yield above that of the S&P 500 Index. FEQTX’s trailing yield is roughly 2%. For comparison, the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust’s (NYSEARCA: SPY ) yield is about 1.9%. So I guess it lives up to its definition of reasonable yield, but that may not be your definition. Searching for stocks, Offen looks for , “…companies that deliver attractive, above-market dividend income and provide exposure to conservative earnings-growth potential with relatively low volatility.” He likes companies with, “…high or improving returns on capital and companies with strong balance sheets, including cash on hand…” As a shareholder, these are the types of things you’d like a manager to look for. The fund tilts toward value stocks, which isn’t surprising since Offen’s last gig was at a value fund. The interesting thing here is that the manager cautions that focusing too much on yield is dangerous. He highlights the banking sector during the 2007 to 2009 recession as a cautionary tale. And while that’s a worthy warning, 2% isn’t a material yield and it certainly isn’t much more than an index is offering, so income investors looking at, or in, this fund have a right to wonder if they are getting their money’s worth. Performance is so-so The problem is that performance relative to the S&P isn’t all that great. Over the trailing three years through July, FEQTX’s annualized return, which includes reinvested distributions, is around 14.7%. The SPY’s annualized return over that span is nearly 17.6%. Both have roughly similar standard deviations and FEQTX’s Beta is nearly 0.95, meaning it moves roughly in line with the S&P. (SPY, as you might expect, moves in lock step with the S&P.) So there’s little yield advantage, no performance advantage, and the same amount of risk. Although the expense ratio of around 0.60% is low for a mutual fund, the extra expense isn’t worth it when you could by SPY, get better performance and a similar yield, and pay just 10 basis points or so in expenses. A better alternative? This is why you shouldn’t get sucked in by a fund name. I’m not suggesting that FEQTX is a bad fund, per se, just that it isn’t compelling enough compared to other options. That said, I don’t believe it lives up to the words “dividend income,” which are found in its name. If you own the fund or are looking at it, you’ll basically be getting something on an index clone at greater cost. Why not shift gears and look at a completely different space? For example, you might consider the Nuveen S&P 500 Buy-Write Income Fund (NYSE: BXMX ). This fund was created through the merger of two older Nuveen closed-end funds late last year and now has the goal of tracking the S&P while writing index options to generate current income. It doesn’t have a long track record, to be sure, but it has put up decent results so far. First off, the distribution is around 7.6%, well above that offered by the index and FEQTX. And year to date through July, BXMX’s return is nearly 6.2% while SPY is about 3.4% and FEQTX is just 1.3%. A big difference, however, is in the expense ratio, which is just under 1%. But based on performance so far under the new investment strategy, you are being rewarded for that. The biggest risk, of course, is that the new strategy is untested. Which is a legitimate concern. That said, writing options should mute downside risk since in a falling market option income will offset capital losses. At least that’s the theory, anyway. Time will be the true test of this, meaning that you’ll need a little faith if you choose to own BXMX. But with a discount of nearly 7%, you are getting a little protection built in by buying below the actual value of the portfolio. Looking at that a little closer at recent performance, since the last few months have been pretty rough, BXMX’s trailing daily return over the last three months through August 26th was a loss of almost 4.2%. The S&P over that same span fell just under 7.3%. Over the trailing month through August 26th, BXMX was down about 5.1% and the index was down nearly 6.5%. So, through the current turmoil anyway, BXMX seems to be holding its own. Note, too, that upside performance should be muted in a roaring bull market because of the use of options. This year’s sideways market is really a good space for option writing. So the strong out of the gate performance really shouldn’t be taken as an indication of future performance. But income should always be notable. Not the only option That said, BXMX is just one option. It seems like a compelling one compared to FEQTX, but there are other closed-end funds with compelling yields and performance histories. That said, the real point here is to make sure you understand what you own. That’s particularly true of mutual funds where a fund may not be living up to its name. If you find you are an income-oriented investor stuck in such a fund, consider shifting to closed-end funds. You might find you are willing to pay a little more for a higher level of income-that’s especially true when the fund you own is simply tracking a broader index. 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.