Tag Archives: lightbox

4 Best-Rated Fidelity Mutual Funds To Invest In

Fidelity Investments is one of the largest and oldest mutual fund companies in the world. The company serves nearly 25 million individual customers. As of December 31, 2015, it had total assets of $5.15 trillion, with $2.04 trillion under management. Fidelity Investments carries out operations in the U.S. through 10 regional offices and over 180 Investor Centers. It also has its presence in eight other countries of North America, Europe, Asia and Australia. The company provides investment advice, discount brokerage services, retirement services, wealth management services, securities execution and clearance and life insurance products to its clients. At Fidelity, a large group of investment professionals carry out extensive and in-depth research on potential investment avenues worldwide. Below, we share with you four top-ranked Fidelity mutual funds. Each has earned a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #1 (Strong Buy) and is expected to outperform its peers in the future. To view the Zacks Rank and past performance of all Fidelity mutual funds, investors can click here . Fidelity Select Telecommunications Portfolio No Load (MUTF: FSTCX ) invests the majority of its assets in securities of companies primarily involved in the manufacture and sale of communications services or communications equipment. It invests in both domestic and foreign issuers. Factors including financial condition and industry position, as well as market and economic conditions are considered before investing in a company. The fund is non-diversified and has a three-year annualized return of 7.5%. As of March 2016, FSTCX held 51 issues, with 22.18% of its assets invested in AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T ). Fidelity Select Retailing Portfolio No Load (MUTF: FSRPX ) seeks growth of capital. It invests a large chunk of its assets in securities of firms involved in merchandising finished goods and services to consumers. FSRPX focuses on acquiring common stocks of companies throughout the globe. Factors including financial strength and economic condition are considered before investing in a company. The fund has a three-year annualized return of 18.3%. Deena Friedman has been the fund manager of FSRPX since 2014. Fidelity Select Software & IT Services Portfolio No Load (MUTF: FSCSX ) invests a major portion of its assets in companies whose primary operations are related to software or information-based services. It primarily focuses on acquiring common stocks of both domestic and foreign companies. FSCSX uses fundamental analysis to select companies for investment purposes. It has a three-year annualized return of 15.9%. FSCSX has an expense ratio of 0.76%, as compared to a category average of 1.45%. Fidelity International Small Cap Opportunities Fund No Load (MUTF: FSCOX ) seeks capital appreciation. It invests the majority of its assets in small-cap companies located outside the U.S., including those from emerging countries. FSCOX emphasizes investing in common stocks of companies with market capitalization below $5 billion. The fund invests in securities issued in different countries. It has a three-year annualized return of 6.2%. Jed Weiss has been the fund manager of FSCOX since 2008. Original Post

Best And Worst Q2’16: Healthcare ETFs, Mutual Funds And Key Holdings

The Health Care sector ranks seventh out of the ten sectors as detailed in our Q2’16 Sector Ratings for ETFs and Mutual Funds report. Last quarter , the Health Care sector ranked sixth. It gets our Dangerous rating, which is based on aggregation of ratings of 22 ETFs and 80 mutual funds in the Health Care sector. See a recap of our Q1’16 Sector Ratings here . Figures 1 and 2 show the five best and worst rated ETFs and mutual funds in the sector. Not all Health Care sector ETFs and mutual funds are created the same. The number of holdings varies widely (from 23 to 351). This variation creates drastically different investment implications and, therefore, ratings. Investors seeking exposure to the Health Care sector should buy one of the Attractive-or-better rated ETFs or mutual funds from Figures 1 and 2. Figure 1: ETFs with the Best & Worst Ratings – Top 5 Click to enlarge * Best ETFs exclude ETFs with TNAs less than $100 million for inadequate liquidity. Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Figure 2: Mutual Funds with the Best & Worst Ratings – Top 5 Click to enlarge * Best mutual funds exclude funds with TNAs less than $100 million for inadequate liquidity. Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Saratoga Advantage Health & Biotechnology Portfolio (SBHIX, SHPCX) and Live Oak Health Sciences Fund (MUTF: LOGSX ) are excluded from Figure 2 because their total net assets are below $100 million and do not meet our liquidity minimums. iShares Global Healthcare ETF (NYSEARCA: IXJ ) is the top-rated Health Care ETF and Schwab Health Care Fund (MUTF: SWHFX ) is the top-rated Health Care mutual fund. IXJ earns an Attractive rating and SWHFX earns a Neutral rating. BioShares Biotechnology Products Fund (NASDAQ: BBP ) is the worst rated Health Care ETF and Alger Health Sciences Fund (MUTF: AHSAX ) is the worst rated Health Care mutual fund. Both earn a Very Dangerous rating. 354 stocks of the 3000+ we cover are classified as Health Care stocks. Gilead Sciences (NASDAQ: GILD ) is one of our favorite stocks held by IXJ and earns a Very Attractive rating. Gilead has built a highly profitable business in the biotech industry and has grown after-tax profit ( NOPAT ) by an impressive 39% compounded annually since 2005. Over the same time frame, Gilead has increased its return on invested capital ( ROIC ) from an already high 37% in 2005 to a top-quintile 88% in 2015. Over the past five years, Gilead has generated a cumulative $26 billion in free cash flow. Despite the operational successes, GILD remains undervalued. At its current price of $98/share, GILD has a price-to-economic book value ( PEBV ) ratio of 0.6. This ratio means that the market expects Gilead’s NOPAT to permanently decline by 40%. However, if Gilead can grow NOPAT by just 4% compounded annually for the next five years , the stock is worth $181/share today – an 85% upside. Eli Lilly (NYSE: LLY ) is one of our least favorite stocks held by AHSAX and earns a Dangerous rating. Over the past five years, Eli Lilly’s NOPAT has declined by 12% compounded annually. The company’s ROIC has fallen from 21% in 2010 to only 8% in 2015. NOPAT margins have followed a similar path and fallen from 24% in 2010 to 14% in 2015. In the meantime, LLY has increased 25% over the past two years, which has left shares overvalued. To justify its current price of $75/share, Eli Lilly must grow NOPAT by 8% compounded annually for the next 14 years . This expectation seems awfully optimistic given the deterioration of LLY’s business operations. Figures 3 and 4 show the rating landscape of all Health Care ETFs and mutual funds. Figure 3: Separating the Best ETFs From the Worst ETFs Click to enlarge Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Figure 4: Separating the Best Mutual Funds From the Worst Mutual Funds Click to enlarge Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings D isclosure: David Trainer and Kyle Guske II receive no compensation to write about any specific stock, sector or theme. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. 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.

Politics Cranks Up The Volume On Volatility

All bets are off this election season Last week, the long and rancorous 2016 GOP presidential primary season came to an abrupt end as two of the three remaining candidates dropped out of the race. In a development that has astounded political pundits, Donald Trump is now the presumptive Republican nominee for President of the United States. Ironically, Hillary Clinton – who has long been viewed as the likely Democratic nominee – is still ensconced in primary season, slugging it out with her resilient challenger, Bernie Sanders. It remains to be seen whether Clinton can win key states such as California and finally capture the nomination. And every day that she must fight within her party weakens her, as she is being criticized from both the left and the right, which negatively impacts her ability to win in the general election. It seems that nothing thus far in this race has been going according to plan. Early on, pundits had predicted Donald Trump had no chance of winning the nomination, dismissing his bid as quixotic; similarly, they minimized the potential appeal that a candidate such as Bernie Sanders could engender and predicted an easy primary season for Hillary Clinton. Both assumptions have obviously been proven wrong. And although all Republican candidates for president signed an agreement that they would support the nominee, some are now reneging on the pledge. For his part, Trump has warned that his supporters may riot at the Republican National Convention this July if he does not get the nomination, although that now seems moot given all challengers for the nomination have fallen away. Meanwhile, candidate Sanders has suggested he will remain a candidate through the end of primary season and force a contested convention. What’s more, some prominent Republicans are already announcing they will not support Trump as their nominee in his bid for president. When House Speaker Paul Ryan announced last week that he is “just not ready” to endorse Trump, former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said she would campaign to unseat Ryan in the primary. And there are questions about whether, if Clinton is able to secure the Democratic nomination, Sanders supporters would stay home rather than vote for her in the general election. All bets seem to be off this election season, with some conservative Republicans even calling for a third-party candidate. Politics outside the proverbial box Adding to the disorder is that candidate Trump has a controversial platform that is not traditionally Republican in some important regards. For example, Trump’s suggestion last week that the US could renegotiate bond obligations to pay less than face value on US Treasuries to its debt holders, as Greece has done, could roil capital markets. In addition, Trump’s protectionist stance is of concern to many businesspeople because they fear a curtailment of free trade. Another area of concern is the US income tax code. Earlier this week, Donald Trump said he was open to raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, a reversal of his original platform of decreasing taxes for those in all income tax brackets. This new position flies in the face of a key tenet of the Republican Party for two decades – and makes it more difficult to differentiate him from Democratic candidates. Perhaps even more controversial than Trump’s stance on certain issues is that of candidate Sanders, whose platform includes a protectionist approach to trade and a dramatic increase in income taxes on higher-income Americans. It seems that the candidates with the most fervent supporters are the ones whose platforms exist outside the proverbial box of their respective parties, which makes sense given American’s growing distrust of the “establishment.” Stock market uncertainty Pundits, of course, are saying that 1) Trump’s campaign platform will become more moderate now that he has to appeal to the general populace; and 2) it doesn’t matter anyway because he has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the election in November. While the former may be true, any material changes in platform create uncertainty and ultimately reduce credibility – which is not typically met with approval by the stock market. But more importantly, the pundits have been terribly wrong about the candidacy of Donald Trump since the start, which suggests they could continue to be terribly wrong. After all, some of Donald Trump’s positions – such as maintaining Social Security at its current level – are likely to be more appealing to the general populace than to fiscally conservative Republicans. In other words, Trump may prove more popular in the general election than many expect – perhaps more popular than he has been in Republican primaries. Some even go so far as to argue that there is a significant cohort of dissatisfied voters that could support either Trump or Sanders. What’s more, if Clinton were to become the Democratic nominee, she may have difficulty winning over many Republican voters reluctant to support Trump, particularly given that she continues to be tugged to the left by the powerful primary challenge from Sanders. A pivot to the center, if and when she has secured the nomination, could similarly suffer from a lack of credibility, causing voters to wonder what they will actually get come January. Volatility up ahead This commentary is not intended to be an endorsement or indictment of any of the presidential candidates. What we’re concerned with is the stock market’s reaction to this year’s ongoing election developments. For example, a surge in the polls for Hillary Clinton could result in a sell-off of the healthcare sector on the assumption, rightly or wrongly, that her administration would have a negative impact on the health care industry. It’s no surprise, then, that some financial advisors I talk with are becoming increasingly worried about the presidential election and the potential for a substantial sell-off. In this “all bets are off” election, investors need to be prepared to be surprised – which means to be prepared for more volatility. Given not just this election but a potential Brexit, growing discontent in Europe and ongoing problems in the Middle East, it seems political developments around the globe could be the biggest source of volatility for investors this year. In this environment, investors will be well served by being tactical asset and sector allocators – and by focusing on downside protection in their respective portfolios.