Tag Archives: investing ideas

How To Find The Best Style Mutual Funds: Q3’15

Summary The large number of mutual funds hurts investors more than it helps as too many options become paralyzing. Performance of a mutual funds holdings are equal to the performance of a mutual fund. Our coverage of mutual funds leverages the diligence we do on each stock by rating mutual funds based on the aggregated ratings of their holdings. Finding the best mutual funds is an increasingly difficult task in a world with so many to choose from. How can you pick with so many choices available? Don’t Trust Mutual Fund Labels There are at least 871 different Large Cap Blend mutual funds and at least 5971 mutual funds across twelve styles. Do investors need 500+ choices on average per style? How different can the mutual funds be? Those 871 Large Cap Blend mutual funds are very different. With anywhere from 18 to 1347 holdings, many of these Large Cap Blend mutual funds have drastically different portfolios, creating drastically different investment implications. The same is true for the mutual funds in any other style, as each offers a very different mix of good and bad stocks. Large Cap Value ranks first for stock selection. Small Cap Blend ranks last. Details on the Best & Worst mutual funds in each style are here . A Recipe for Paralysis By Analysis We firmly believe mutual funds for a given style should not all be that different. We think the large number of Large Cap Blend (or any other) style mutual funds hurts investors more than it helps because too many options can be paralyzing. It is simply not possible for the majority of investors to properly assess the quality of so many mutual funds. Analyzing mutual funds, done with the proper diligence, is far more difficult than analyzing stocks because it means analyzing all the stocks within each mutual fund. As stated above, that can be as many as 1347 stocks, and sometimes even more, for one mutual fund. Any investor worth his salt recognizes that analyzing the holdings of a mutual fund is critical to finding the best mutual fund. Figure 1 shows our top rated mutual fund for each style. Figure 1: The Best Mutual Fund in Each Style (click to enlarge) Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings How To Avoid “The Danger Within” Why do you need to know the holdings of mutual funds before you buy? You need to be sure you do not buy a fund that might blow up. Buying a fund without analyzing its holdings is like buying a stock without analyzing its business and finances. No matter how cheap, if it holds bad stocks, the mutual fund’s performance will be bad. Don’t just take our word for it, see what Barron’s says on this matter. PERFORMANCE OF FUND’S HOLDINGS = PERFORMANCE OF FUND If Only Investors Could Find Funds Rated by Their Holdings… The Calvert Large Cap Core Portfolio (MUTF: CMIIX ) is the top-rated Large Cap Blend mutual fund and the overall best fund of the 5971 style mutual funds that we cover. The worst mutual fund in Figure 1 is the Harbor Funds Mid Cap Value Fund (MUTF: HAMVX ) which gets a Neutral rating. One would think mutual fund providers could do better for this style. Disclosure: David Trainer and Max Lee receive no compensation to write about any specific stock, style, or theme. 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. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

The Trouble With Momentum – And What To Do About It

Summary Growth stocks have outperformed value stocks in recent years, which is shining a spotlight on momentum. Unlike other investment factors, the momentum premium has been persistent since it was identified by financial academics in the 1990s. We believe that combining momentum with value and other factors within a multi-factor framework is a compelling way to address the challenge of tapping momentum profitably in a growth portfolio. It’s no secret that growth stocks have outperformed value stocks in recent years. For example, in the two years from September 1, 2013 to August 31, 2015, large cap growth stocks (as measured by the Russell 1000 Growth Index) returned 14.7% annualized vs. 9.6% annualized for value stocks (Russell 1000 Value Index). This pattern of outperformance has shone a spotlight on momentum , an investment factor that works particularly well in growth-stock investing. But making money by identifying growth stocks with momentum characteristics isn’t as easy as it sounds. In this column, I will explain why and briefly describe how Gerstein Fisher addresses some of the problems inherent in tilting a growth stock portfolio to momentum. Momentum: a Persistent Investment Factor First, let’s define what we mean by momentum. Momentum is the tendency for winning stocks (that is, stocks that have outperformed the market over the past three to 12 months) to keep winning and losing stocks to keep losing. First identified in papers co-authored in the early 1990s by Sheridan Titman, one of our Academic Partners, the momentum factor would seem to refute the weak form of the Efficient Market Hypothesis, which asserts that stock prices reflect all available information and that past price movements should be unrelated to future average returns. Momentum suggests that prior movements in price are in fact related to expected stock returns – that security prices essentially have memory, which students of statistics will recognize as serial correlation. Since those landmark studies in the 1990s, a number of other academic papers have established that a momentum strategy works not only in equity markets around the world (with the notable exception of Japan’s) but also in several other asset classes, including currencies and commodities. At Gerstein Fisher, we find that a momentum tilt works at least as well in our multi-factor real estate investment trust (aka REIT) portfolio as in our US and international growth equity strategies. Exhibit 1 shows the compound annualized returns from 1927 to 2014 for 10 portfolios formed on momentum (defined here as the one-year return skipping the most recent month). Investing in the highest past one-year return (i.e., highest-momentum) stocks generated a 16.9% annualized return, while the lowest decile of momentum lost 1.5% per year. Note the steady improvement in performance as momentum increases. (click to enlarge) Moreover, unlike some other investment factors identified by financial academics, momentum has remained remarkably robust and persistent. For instance, since the size premium for small cap stocks was identified in the early 1980s, it has shrunk dramatically (see my recent column for more on this phenomenon: ” Is the Small Cap Stock Premium Disappearing? “); similarly, the value premium has also sharply declined since Fama and French published their pioneering paper on it in 1992. Quite possibly, once seminal research is available in the public domain, quantitative investors target and thereby reduce the available premiums, although they still exist. But momentum seems to be different: our research shows that the strategy has remained profitable, generating a momentum premium of five to seven percentage points* even years after Prof. Titman’s groundbreaking papers in the 1990s. The Challenge for Momentum So if all of this academic and empirical evidence for momentum is present, then what’s the problem? For one thing, momentum stocks are also subject to short-term reversals, the tendency for stocks that have risen relative to the rest of the market in the last month to underperform those that have fallen relative to the rest of the market (for more on this topic, see our recently posted paper: ” Do past returns predict future returns? Evidence from Momentum and Short – Term Reversals “). In addition, the discipline and emotion-free decisions required to hold high-momentum winners and cut low-momentum losers every month are behaviorally difficult for many individual investors to make. Most importantly, there is a very large issue with turnover and transaction costs (and tax liabilities, if held in a taxable account) with a momentum growth stock portfolio. In short, without rules for controlling portfolio turnover, transaction costs will quickly devour a premium from a tilt to momentum (a monthly rebalanced, long-only momentum strategy may have a turnover of about 300%, implying a holding period of around four months). We believe that an effective approach to addressing the problem of excess turnover is by combining momentum, a so-called fast-moving factor, with value (which we may define, for instance, as a tilt to higher book-to-market stocks than the Russell 3000 Growth Index), a slow-moving factor. Combining these two negatively correlated factors in one portfolio provides factor diversification, which is a good thing since there are pronounced and different cycles to different factors. But we also find that by combining the signals of value and momentum, we can slow down portfolio trading dramatically and improve risk-adjusted performance, both relative to the index and compared to the sum of standalone value and momentum strategies-a typical advantage of a multi-factor strategy in one portfolio. We will soon publish our research on the optimum way to combine momentum and value in an academic journal. In the meantime, I invite you to read our working paper: ” Combining Value and Momentum “. Conclusion Growth stocks – and momentum – have been the source of strong performance in the stock market. The momentum premium is palpable but difficult to tap profitably in a growth portfolio. We believe that combining momentum with value and other factors within a multi-factor framework is a compelling way to address this challenge. *The momentum premium is defined as the returns of the highest 30% of large cap US stocks rated by momentum less the return of the lowest 30% of stocks rated by momentum. Data on momentum decile portfolios are taken from Ken French’s website. 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. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Clean Energy Fuels: Consider On The Drop

Summary CLNE shares have lost 46% of their value in the past year despite negotiating the drop in natural gas prices smartly as it has improved both its revenue and margin. CLNE’s volumes delivered have been increasing and the trend will continue in the future as natural gas is a cheaper fuel to run trucks as compared to diesel. The increase in natural gas demand is expected to provide a boost to prices going forward, but the fuel will still have a positive differential over diesel. CLNE’s customers in both the transit and refuse markets have been adding more natural gas trucks and this will act as a tailwind by increasing the addressable market. The past one year has turned out to be very difficult for Clean Energy Fuels (NASDAQ: CLNE ) on the stock market. The company’s stock price has taken a beating as the price of natural gas has dropped steeply in the past year. In fact, last quarter, Clean Energy’s revenue was down 11% year-over-year as low fuel prices affected its top line performance negatively to the tune of $5.6 million. Why Clean Energy’s drop is not justified However, I think that the 46% drop in Clean Energy’s shares in the past year is a bit harsh, especially considering the fact that the company has been able to actually improve its financial performance in the past year. This is shown in the following chart: Henry Hub Natural Gas Spot Price data by YCharts As seen above, Clean Energy’s top line performance has improved despite difficult conditions. This can be attributed to the fact that Clean Energy is seeing an increase in volumes delivered of natural gas as customers are still adopting natural gas-powered vehicles despite the drop in diesel prices. Looking ahead, it is likely that Clean Energy will continue to see an improvement in both volumes and its margins. Let’s see why. More volume and margin growth ahead Natural gas enjoys an advantage over diesel when it comes to running natural gas truck fleets in terms of both costs and emissions. This is the reason why Clean Energy is seeing an increase in gallons delivered even though diesel prices have dropped rapidly in the past year. In fact, Clean Energy saw its transit customers add more than 224 buses to their fleets in the previous quarter. This represents natural gas fuel consumption of 3 million gallons annually. On the other hand, waste haulers such as Republic Services (NYSE: RSG ) have also been enhancing their natural gas fleets. In 2015, Republic has increased its CNG fleet by 130 trucks. Looking ahead, by the end of the year, Republic plans to add 150 more trucks to its fleet. This is despite the fact that the cost of a natural gas conversion kit is $50,000 more than a diesel truck. Now, the fact that Clean Energy’s customers are still adopting natural gas trucks despite the drop in diesel prices is not surprising, as natural gas is still a cheaper fuel when compared to diesel. This is shown in the chart below: (click to enlarge) Source: Clean Energy Fuels investor relations Looking ahead, I won’t be surprised if Clean Energy’s volumes continue improving as the adoption of natural gas vehicles gains more momentum. As per Navigant Research , “global annual NGV sales are expected to grow from 2.5 million vehicles in 2014 to 4.3 million in 2024.” More importantly, apart from volume growth, Clean Energy is also focused on reducing its expenses. The company has reduced its selling, general, and administrative expenses by over 16% as compared to last year. Also, it has reduced its capital expenditure by more than 58% to $26 million in the first six months of the year as compared to the prior-year period. As a result of these moves, Clean Energy has been able to improve its EBITDA by $3 million as compared to the first quarter and $2.1 million from the prior-year period. More importantly, this improvement in EBITDA has been achieved despite a double-digit drop in revenue from last year. Thus, Clean Energy is following a smart two-pronged approach to grow its business – first by increasing volumes and second by lowering costs. However, Clean Energy will need a boost from better natural gas prices in order to enhance its financial performance. Higher natural gas prices are a possibility The Energy Information Administration expects natural gas prices to improve in the future due to an increase demand in both domestic as well as international markets. In a reference case study, the Henry Hub natural gas spot prices are expected to rise from $3.69 per MMBtu in 2015 to $4.88 per MMBtu in 2020, followed by $7.85 MMBtu in 2040 as shown in the charts below. Source: EIA The expected increase in natural gas pricing is not surprising as global gas demand is expected to grow 51% by 2035. The increase in demand will be driven by an increase in consumption from the power and industrial sectors. New gas-fired power plants are being built to meet the increase electricity demand and existing plants are being converted from burning expensive and polluting oil products to cheaper, cleaner natural gas. So, this switch from coal to gas-fired power plants will increase demand for the fuel, thereby leading to higher prices. More importantly, despite the expected rise in natural gas pricing, the fuel is expected to be cheaper than diesel. This is shown in the chart below: Source: Westport Innovations Thus, as seen above, the differential between gas and diesel price is expected to favor the former in the long run, and this will aid Clean Energy’s growth. Conclusion Clean Energy Fuels has been beaten down badly in the past year, but the drop seems unjustified. The company has been able to do well in a difficult end-market environment and its outlook looks strong as well. Hence, in my opinion, the drop in Clean Energy’s shares in the past year is an opportunity to buy as the company could do well in the long run on the back of improving NGV adoption and an expected rise in natural gas pricing. Thus, investors should consider the drop in Clean Energy’s shares as a buying opportunity since the stock could deliver upside in the long run. 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.