Tag Archives: jnk

October ETF Asset-Flow Roundup

After a tumultuous Q3, it might be wise to look at how the $2.1 billion ETF industry performed in the first month of fourth-quarter 2015. Overall, the month came as a breather after a throttling third quarter. The major U.S. indexes finished October on a positive note on a stabilizing global economy, the promise of further monetary stimuli from the global superpowers and a dovish Fed. Let’s take a look at the corners that were the hot favorites of investors and those that were casted out. Our study concludes that income and international ETFs were the star performers in terms of asset gathering as these saw maximum inflows while the broader U.S. market was the laggard. Gainers High-Yield Bonds – SPDR Barclays High Yield Bond (NYSEARCA: JNK ) Hopes of a delayed Fed rate hike pushed bond yields down in October and investors piled up cash in high-yield bond ETFs, both for income and growth. Moreover, junk bonds are well attached with the energy sector. As energy securities cover about 16% of the high-yield bond market, a recovery in oil prices bode well for high-yield ETFs in the month. Thanks to this trend, JNK, a popular junk bond ETF, was at the helm, having added over $2.6 billion in assets in the month. This propelled its AUM to $11.9 billion. Two other junk-bond ETFs, iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: LQD ) and iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: HYG ) also added about $2.52 billion and $2.23 billion, respectively, to their asset base and took the second and third spots. LQD and HYG ended the month with about $24.7 billion and $15.4 billion, respectively. Nasdaq – PowerShares QQQ (NASDAQ: QQQ ) Technology earnings have turned out pretty well this season with the numbers not only bettering pre-season expectations, but also outperforming the sector’s performance in other recent quarters. This boosted investors’ lure for the tech-heavy Nasdaq ETF QQQ which took the fourth rank. QQQ hauled in about $1.73 billion to exit the month with $37 billion in assets. Europe – iShares MSCI EMU ETF (NYSEARCA: EZU ) The European markets roared back in the month on the European Central Bank (ECB) president Mario Draghi’s reassurance of a more intensified and protracted QE measure, if need be. Sensing further easing potential, STOXX 600 added about 8% in October underscoring the largest monthly rally in six years. Investors also poured in $1.56 billion, the fifth largest in the list, to be part of this rally. EZU has now amassed over $13 billion. Losers U.S. – SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (NYSEARCA: SPY ) Despite the Fed-induced bounce, U.S. stocks – small and large – could not rope in investors’ attention. While global growth fears weighed on the S&P 500-based large-cap ETF SPY, a volley of weak U.S. economic data came in the way of Russell 2000-based small-cap ETF iShares Russell 2000 (NYSEARCA: IWM ). After all, U.S. economic growth tallied 1.5 % in Q3, falling short of expectation of 1.6%. The products, SPY and IWM, witnessed an outflow of about $827 million and $632 million, respectively. Short-Term U.S. Bonds – iShares 3-7 Year Treasury Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: IEI ) Though the bet over a faster rate hike eased in October, the investing world has started to prepare for a Fed lift-off by this year-end or early next year. Since short-term bonds are expected to underperform the most on an expected rise in benchmark interest rates, short-term bond ETFs fell out of investors’ favor. Moreover, short-term bond ETFs sport meager yields – another reason for the disfavor to yield-starved investors. Hence, IEI had to sacrifice about $511 million in net assets while iShares Short Treasury Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: SHV ) surrendered about $507 million. Biotechnology – iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology (NASDAQ: IBB ) Nagging concerns over the biotech space regarding the over pricing of life-saving drugs shifted this hot and soaring sector from its lofty position a bit. Though the downing trend is reversing lately, October was an off month for the biotech sector. The biotech fund IBB saw a net exodus of about $497 million in assets. Original Post

Lipper Fund Flows: Muni Bonds Continue To Shine

For the fund-flows week ended October 7, the benchmark Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 628 points to settle at 16,912. Equity mutual fund investors made net redemptions of $3.9 billion this past week (of which $2.0 billion was from large-cap funds), while equity exchange-traded funds (ETFs) saw net outflows of $4.1 billion as investors backed out of SPDR S&P 500 ((NYSEARCA: SPY ), -$2.0 billion), iShares Russell 2000 ((NYSEARCA: IWM ), -$1.6 billion), and iShares MSCI Germany ((NYSEARCA: EWG ), -$375 million). The $1.8-billion Select Sector Oil & Gas SPDR ((NYSEARCA: XOP ), +$303 million) led the weekly net inflows list. Bond mutual fund investors, like their equity counterparts, took a risk-off attitude as they redeemed shares. Overall, taxable bond mutual funds saw net outflows of $2.3 billion for the week, which marked the eleventh consecutive week of outflows for the group. Also marking 11 weeks of net outflows, Lipper’s Loan Participation Funds classification (-$354 million) saw no end in sight to the bleeding. High Yield Funds suffered outflows (-$675 million) among mutual fund investors but managed to take in net inflows on the ETF side (+$1.4 billion). Overall, bond ETFs saw $4.6 billion of net inflows. The week’s biggest bond ETF net inflows went to SPDR Barclays High Yield ((NYSEARCA: JNK ) , +$1.2 billion ) , while iShares 1-3 Credit ((NYSEARCA: CSJ ) , -$137 million ) led the net outflows list. Municipal bond mutual fund investors added $528 million net to their accounts, and the funds now have had inflows for two of the past three weeks-their best showing since April. Money market funds saw net inflows of $16.8 billion, of which institutional investors added $10.2 billion and retail investors added $6.6 billion. Share this article with a colleague

Opportunity In Calamos Convertible Opportunities And Income Fund

Summary The recent sell-off in the CEF space has brought CHI to a discount value not seen since the financial crisis. 2- and 4-year z-scores in excess of negative 3.5 indicate extreme oversold conditions. CHI offers a current 10.91% yield with a possible chance of capital appreciation. With a fixed number of shares, CEFs can exhibit substantial premia or discounts to their net asset values [NAVs]. When investors become pessimistic, they become inclined to sell their CEF holdings even it if means selling at a price below the intrinsic value of the fund. Not surprisingly, the recent market turmoil has punished CEFs especially hard. As detailed in my recent article entitled ” Sell-Off In CEF Space Brings CEFL’s Discount To Record High “, 20 of the 30 constituents of the fund-of-funds CEFL (NYSEARCA: CEFL ) are at or close to 52-week high discounts. Exploiting of mean reversion in CEFs is a potential strategy to lock in higher yields as well as the chance for capital appreciation. In a July 2014 paper entitled Exploiting Closed-End Fund Discounts: The Market May Be Much More Inefficient Than You Thought , authors Patro, Piccotti and Wu provide significant evidence of mean reversion in closed-end fund premiums. This article identifies an opportunity to buy the Calamos Convertible Opportunities And Income Fund (NASDAQ: CHI ) at a greater discount than any time since the financial crisis. The fund Pertinent details for the fund are shown below. Details were obtained from Morningstar , CEFConnect or Calamos . CHI Inception 6/2002 AUM $731M Avg. volume 293K Yield (on price) 10.92% Yield (no NAV) 9.72% Adjusted yield (on price) 8.51% Adjusted yield (on NAV) 7.57% Leverage 28.34% Premium/discount -10.91% 5-year average P/D -0.30% Expense ratio 1.35% Active expense ratio 0.65% Morningstar rating **** As can be seen from the table above, CHI currently sports a 10.92% yield on price, while distributing 9.72% on its NAV. The reason for this discrepancy is due to its wide discount of -10.91%. Additionally, CHI uses 28.34% leverage. The adjusted yields shown assume 100% leverage for easier comparison to an unleveraged fund. CHI charges a total expense ratio of 1.35%. I previously devised an “active expense” metric that takes into account two factors: leverage and the expense ratio charged for a corresponding passive instrument. Taking into account the 28.34% leverage of CHI and the 0.40% expense you would to pay for the SPDR Barclays Convertible Securities ETF (NYSEARCA: CWB ), the price for the active management of CHI is a reasonable 0.65%. In terms of composition, CHI has its majority of assets in convertibles (57.06%), followed by corporate bonds (38.54%). Short-term debt and equity make up a very minor component of CHI. Widening discount Until recently, both CHI and the benchmark ETF CWB have had robust performances over the past few years. As can be seen from the graph below, CHI and CWB moved very closely from Jan. 2013 to around Mar. 2015 of this year. However, a major divergence suddenly appeared over the last few months, causing CHI to underperform by some 15% over brief period. What was the cause of CHI’s underperformance? Tracking the market price and NAV changes of the fund reveals the answer. As can be seen from the graph below, while the NAV of CHI decreased by around 10% over the past few months, mainly due to a general malaise in the high-yield credit market, the market price of CHI slumped by 20% over the same time period. The premium/discount chart of CHI over the past 1-year period shows this clearly (source: CEFConnect). Historical premium/discount Just having a wide discount alone is not good reason to buy a CEF. For mean reversion to take place, one must consider the historical premium/discount behavior of the fund. As can be seen from the chart below (source: CEFConnect), the current discount of CHI has reached levels that have not been seen since the financial crisis. Moreover, that was also the only time that the discount has exceeded -10%. In the boom years of 2002 to 2007, CHI actually experienced premia of 10%-20%, although this is unlikely to be replicated given that the ETF CWB became available from 2009 onwards. The following chart shows the current, and 1-, 3- and 5-year premium/discount values for CHI (data from CEFConnect). The z-score is a measure of the deviation of the premium/discount value of CEF from its historical value taking into account the volatility of said value. The following chart shows the 1-, 2- and 4-year z-scores for CHI (source: CEFAnalyzer). Mathematically, the 1-year z-score of -2.59 means that the discount would be expected to appear 0.48% of the time, the 2-year z-score of -3.52 corresponds to a 0.02% probability of appearance, and the 4-year z-score of -3.93 represents a measly 0.004% probability of occurrence. However, one should understand that this doesn’t mean that there’s a 99.996% chance that the discount will narrow, only that the observed discount is an extremely rare statistical occurrence. Moreover, it could be that the current discount represents a “new normal” of sorts, rendering the historical premium/discount value meaningless. Nevertheless, the z-score is a good starting point for gauging the sentiment of CEFs. Historical performance Besides having a large and negative z-score, it is also important to consider the historical performance of a fund. The following chart shows the total return performances of CHI, CWB and the SPDR Barclays High Yield Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: JNK ) since early 2009, the inception date of CWB. CHI Total Return Price data by YCharts We can see from the chart above that CHI has remained competitive with CWB and JNK from early 2009 to the start of 2015. As the premium/discount of CHI remained within a narrow range of +5% to 5% during this time, the price total return profile of CHI during this period roughly approximates its NAV total return profile during this time. The outperformance of CHI over CWB and JNK during rising markets is expected due to CHI’s use of leverage. Moreover, CHI has posted respectable NAV returns since inception in 2002. The following chart shows the annualized price and NAV returns of CHI over various historical time periods (source: Calamos). We can see that CHI’s historical performance has been very strong, with a 10.0% annualized return since 2002, and a 10-year annualized return of 7.3%. Keep in mind, however, that CHI uses leverage, which is currently at 28.34%. Distribution CHI pays a monthly distribution of $0.095, representing an annualized dividend yield of 10.92%. The following chart shows the dividend history of CHI since inception (source: CEFConnect). (click to enlarge) The dividend has been remarkably stable since 2008. However, one warning sign is that the fund has been paying out some of its distributions from return of capital over the past 12 months. My calculations show that 19.8% of the past year’s dividends consisted of return of capital. If this continues, the return of capital distributions will either erode CHI’s NAV, or force a distribution cut. Summary The sell-off in the CEF space has pushed CHI’s discount to levels not seen since the financial crisis. The extreme 2- and 4-year z-scores in excess of -3.5 indicate severe pessimism regarding the fund. Purchasing CHI now allows an investor to lock in a higher yield as well as the opportunity for capital appreciation if mean reversion takes place. Moreover, CHI has a strong historical track record since 2002, and its expense ratio is also reasonable. Risks of CHI include interest rate risk and credit risk of the underlying holdings, as well as a further widening of the discount value. The former risks can be somewhat reduced by pairing a long position in CHI with a short position in CWB and/or JNK, but the latter risk remains. (See my previous articles here and here for previous examples of where mean reversion allowed annualized profits of ~20% to be made on CEF pairs trades). Disclosure: I am/we are long CHI, CEFL. (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.