Tag Archives: german
Guggenheim Defensive Equity: Another Defensive ETF That Failed Miserably To Do Its Job
As the equities markets are crashing all over the planet, more conservative players look to play defense by considering defensive investments and related exchange traded funds to hedge against the current correction. Defensive Stocks and Sectors During market downturns, high volatility and economic uncertainties, many investors use a risk aversion strategy by rotating to defensive sectors through buying defensive stocks and ETFs to shelter from the storm. Defensive Stocks and Sectors are those deemed non-cyclical and not very dependent on the overall economic cycle. The traditional sectors considered defensive are utilities, consumer staples and healthcare. After all, consumers cannot easily manage without gas and electricity, soap and toothpaste and of course their medicine. Other sectors deemed defensive are the telecom sector and the US real estate REIT sectors. Part of what makes defensive stocks and sectors appealing is their relatively higher and “safer” dividend which caters to investors wanting equity exposure but less risk. DEF Fund Description The Guggenheim Defensive Equity ETF (NYSEARCA: DEF ) seeks investment results that correspond to the performance, before the Fund’s fees and expenses, of the Sabrient Defensive Equity Index (the “Defensive Equity Index”). The Fund invests at least 90% of its total assets in US common stocks, American depositary receipts (“ADRs”) and master limited partnerships (“MLPs”). Guggenheim Funds Investment Advisors, LLC (the “Investment Adviser”) seeks to replicate the performance of the Defensive Equity Index which is comprised of approximately 100 securities selected from a broad universe of global stocks, generally including securities with market capitalizations in excess of $1 billion. For more information about this ETF click here . ETF methodology and Sector Allocation Index selection methodology is designed to identify companies with potentially superior risk/return profiles to outperform during periods of weakness in the markets and/or in the American economy overall. The Index is designed to actively select securities with low relative valuations, conservative accounting, dividend payments and a history of outperformance during bearish market periods. The Index constituents are well-diversified and supposed to represent a “defensive” portfolio. The sector allocation of this ETF is as follows: DEF Dividend and Fees DEF pays a respectable dividend of 3.31% and charges an acceptable management fee of 0.65%. The Perfect Defensive ETF? At first glance, DEF looks like a pretty diversified ETF, positioned within the right sectors to hedge against economic downturns in its focus on traditional defensive stocks, including utilities, real estate and consumer defensive. With its highly regarded investment advisor Guggenheim and an investment strategy that seems logical, DEF might even look like the perfect defensive ETF, as its name suggest, but is it really? Performance of DEF in the past 30 days The following chart depicts the performance of DEF against the S&P 500 index tracked by the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (NYSEARCA: SPY ) during the past 30 days ending Friday January 15, 2016: Click to enlarge As noted on the chart above, DEF utterly failed as a defensive ETF as it tumbled 6.4% when the S&P 500 Index fell 8.4%. Let us compare the performance of DEF against the average performance of the five defensive sectors: Source ycharts.com The failure of DEF is even more evident based on the above table as DEF tumbled by 6.4% against an average decline of 4% for the five main sectors considered to be defensive. So what went wrong with this ETF which seems to tick all the right boxes? In order to understand what went wrong we have to dig a little deeper. Three reasons DEF failed to do its job as a defensive ETF Geographical allocation issues A high 9.3% geographical exposure to the Asian market, of which about one-third relating to emerging markets. The allocations include countries such as Singapore, Taiwan, Japan and Asian emerging markets, all of which are very sensitive to China and took a large hit from the Chinese stock market crash. Stocks in this category include Telekomunik Indonesia (NYSE: TLK ), Japanese Nippon Telegraph & Tele (NYSE: NTT ), and Korean SK Telecom Co (NYSE: SKM ). Direct exposure to China (China Mobile (NYSE: CHL ), China Petroleum & Chemicals (NYSE: SNP ), and Chunghwa Telecom (NYSE: CHT )). About 2% is allocated to South American markets which are highly dependent on commodities and tend to be more sensitive to economic and market volatility and uncertainty. Stocks in this category include Banco De Chile-ADR (NYSE: BCH ) and Mexican Grupo Aeroportuario PAC-ADR (NYSE: PAC ). Sector Allocation issues The Fund has a high 8.2% exposure to the energy sector including oil and gas Master Limited Partnerships. These sectors got hammered the past month. DEF holds indeed high risk stocks for the current environment, such as National Oilwell Varco (NYSE: NOV ) and Targa Resources Partners (NYSE: NGLS ). A 3.2% exposure to the basic material sector which has been diving for the past two years, as commodity prices reached multi-year lows on concerns of a China slowdown. Stocks in the ETF include AGL Resources (NYSE: GAS ) and Syngenta AG (NYSE: SYT ). A very high exposure of 14.5% to the telecom sector proved to be too much for a defensive ETF, as the sector plunged 7.6% to become one of the ugliest defensive plays for the past month. Stocks in the ETF include Verizon (NYSE: VZ ), Frontier Communications (NASDAQ: FTR ), NTT Docomo and Vodafone (NASDAQ: VOD ). Passive Investing Strategy The most notable problem with DEF Fund lays in the fact that it uses a “passive” or “indexing” investment approach which makes it vulnerable as economic conditions change. DEF does not have a dynamic system in place to exclude currently risky sectors which once used to be considered safe, such as the oil sector and commodities sector, or to limit exposure to disfavored regions and countries. Conclusion Guggenheim Defensive Equity DEF – don’t get fooled by its name! The same can be said about other Defensive ETFs which may seem right at first glance. Investors should still do their due diligence and closely examine how the underlying assets are invested before putting money at work. Special note I am currently sharing on Seeking Alpha additions to my high-yield “Retirement Dividend Portfolio” (target yield 6% to 9%), with the latest one: Hedging My High Dividends with German Exposure . Follow me for future updates!
10 Charts That Explained Markets In 2015… And Will Impact 2016
Summary 2015 will be remembered for weakness in commodity markets, which bled over into global equities and U.S. high yield debt. In 2016, the divergence between monetary policy in the United States and the rest of the developed world could shape global financial markets. Underpinning all global markets is the ongoing transition of the Chinese economy from one driven by fixed investment to one led by domestic consumption, an unrivaled economic experiment. Below are what I believe are ten of the most interesting charts of 2015. The topics depicted had outsized impacts on financial markets in 2015, and will continue to be important considerations as the calendar turns to the New Year. While oil stole many of the headlines in 2015, falling by nearly two-thirds over the past eighteen months, a broad commodity index moved to its lowest level since 1999. Industrial metals, precious metals, and agricultural commodities were all pressured by a slowdown in global growth. Global Commodities Trade at 16-Year Low (click to enlarge) Source: Bloomberg, (Data through mid-day 12/24/15) Stress in commodity markets was primarily blamed on moderating Chinese growth. While the Chinese growth rate has receded, the absolute change in the size of the Chinese economy was still roughly equivalent to its absolute growth in 2006 and 2007 when the economy was growing at double digit growth rates. In 2015, the Chinese economy grew in absolute terms by the size of the entire Swiss or Saudi Arabian economies. Said differently, the Chinese economy still grew in nominal terms by the size of all the goods and services produced in Switzerland in a year. The China effect on commodity prices has been less of a function of flagging growth rates, and more of a function of the party’s efforts at transitioning the economy from an investment-led to a more domestic consumption-driven economy. Chinese Economic Growth in Absolute Terms is Still Tremendous Source: Bloomberg, World Bank While China had an impact on commodity prices, the strengthening dollar also was a big story. When the value of a dollar rises, it takes fewer dollars to buy a given commodity. These global commodities traded in dollars also become more expensive in local terms, potentially reducing demand. As the graph below shows, the dollar is at its strongest points versus a basket of global peers in the last decade-plus. As the Fed normalizes monetary policy further, higher interest rates on dollar investments could also spur a rally in the greenback, which could further pressure commodity prices and U.S. exporters and multinationals with large foreign businesses. The U.S. Dollar Index Strengthens Against Global Peers (click to enlarge) Source: Bloomberg, (Data through mid-day 12/24/15) A key theme in 2016 could be the divergence of U.S. and European monetary policy. Lend money to the German government today for ten years, and they will pay you 0.64% per year. In April, that figure was an astonishing 0.075%. That figure is still negative for 10-yr Swiss government bonds at -0.09%, meaning investors pay for the privilege of the Swiss government to hold their money in Swiss francs. Higher interest rates in the United States could continue to rotate money from the low rates in the developed world (Europe and Japan) and more stressed emerging economies. Shifting capital flows will create volatility and opportunity. German 10-yr Highlights Ongoing European Economic Weakness Source: Bloomberg Speaking of volatility, U.S. investors may have been unnerved by an uptick in market volatility in 2015, but that volatility paled in comparison to the volatility on the shallower Shanghai exchange. Chinese Volatility Could be Part of New Normal (click to enlarge) Source: Bloomberg, Standard and Poor’s One of my key themes has been the long run risk-adjusted outperformance of lower volatility assets relative to their higher beta cohorts. I wrote an expansive series this summer on the L ow Volatility Anomaly , or why lower risk stocks have outperformed their higher risk brethren over time. That theme continued in 2015 as a low volatility component of the S&P 500 outperformed high beta stocks and the broader market gauge on an absolute basis. Low Volatility Outperforms (Again) (click to enlarge) Source: Bloomberg, Standard and Poor’s; (Data through 12/23/15) This preference for lower volatility assets also extended to the topical high yield bond market ( as described in this piece ). Driven by the underperformance of commodity-sensitive speculative grade bonds, the High Yield Index is under the most stress since early in the economic recovery in 2009. This stress can be seen by the sharp underperformance of lower rated riskier ratings cohorts versus the performance of the higher rated BB junk bonds. Chasing Yields Led to Bad Outcomes in High Yield Source: Barclays; Bloomberg While the last two graphs compared different quality classes within an asset class, the next graph depicts the volatility of the 30-yr Treasury versus the S&P 500. As one would expect upon the unwind of vol-suppressing extraordinary monetary accommodation, interest rate volatility increased in 2015 as shown by the variability of the performance of long duration Treasuries. For investors seeking shelter from equity volatility in fixed income, long duration securities with higher interest rate sensitivity may not be the haven for you. (This is a topic I have also covered in the past through an examination of the volatility of the bonds and equity of Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL )). Equity vs. Rate Volatility (click to enlarge) Source: Bloomberg; Standard and Poor’s; U.S. Treasury The Fed rate increase was in large part driven by a firming in the labor market that pushed the unemployment rate down towards its estimated natural rate of unemployment. A different perspective of the labor market shows that labor force participation is at its lowest level in nearly forty years. While we have seen a cyclical recovery in employment figures, the economy still faces secular headwinds from an aging population. Perhaps, there is more slack in the labor market than suggested by official employment statistics. If so, the failure of wage inflation to materialize could increase the risk of policy error by the Fed. How Healthy is the Labor Market? Labor Force Participation at Multi-Generational Lows (click to enlarge) Source: Bloomberg, Bureau of Labor & Statistics; (Data through 11/30/15) The weak economic recovery post-crisis has kept the U.S. economy from operating at its full potential. Limited investment by a necessarily more austere government after record cyclical deficits has pushed the average age of government fixed assets to its oldest age on record. Similarly, corporations have been more apt to invest in their own securities through record share buybacks than undertake capital investment in the real economy, extending the age of the private capital stock. Older fixed assets and infrastructure could be another structural headwind that pressures domestic economic growth. A Growth Drag from Aging Infrastructure? Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis 2015 was a fascinating year in financial markets. Plunging commodities, flagging Chinese growth, ultra-low rates in Europe, and the underperformance of higher risk investments in the United States all were symptomatic of tumultuous global markets. Domestically with equity multiples still above historical averages and yields on investment grade assets still historically low, forward returns are likely to fail to compensate investors for a continued heightened volatility. Disclaimer: My articles may contain statements and projections that are forward-looking in nature, and therefore inherently subject to numerous risks, uncertainties and assumptions. While my articles focus on generating long-term risk-adjusted returns, investment decisions necessarily involve the risk of loss of principal. Individual investor circumstances vary significantly, and information gleaned from my articles should be applied to your own unique investment situation, objectives, risk tolerance, and investment horizon.