Tag Archives: management

Peer Inside The iShares S&P 500 Value ETF

Summary The individual holdings look fairly solid with a heavy exposure to XOM. The sector allocations are going heavy on the financial sector. While those financial firms may benefit from raising short term rates, I’d rather hedge rate risk and add more exposure to utilities. The iShares S&P 500 Value ETF (NYSEARCA: IVE ) is one way to get the value exposure for your portfolio. On the other hand, if you prefer to look at individual sectors you may find the holdings a little more concerning as 25% of the equity is invested in the financial sector. Generally I have tendency to prefer the value side of the index, but going so overweight on financials is an interesting aspect of the fund. Quick Facts The expense ratio is .18%. I have a strong preference for very low expense ratios, so this is a bit higher than I like to see. With over $8 billion in assets under management, it seems better economies of scale could be achieved, but the higher expense ratio may simply reflect more profits to the sponsor of the fund. Holdings I put together the following chart to demonstrate the weight of the top 10 holdings: (click to enlarge) I love seeing Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM ) as a top holding. Investors may be concerned about cheap gas being here to stay, but I think money in politics will be around decades (centuries?) longer than cheap gas. Bet against big oil at your own peril. I find the exposure to AT&T (NYSE: T ) interesting simply because the 2.4% weighting is almost twice that of Verizon (NYSE: VZ ). I find the telecommunications sector a little risky because of the intense price based competition brought by Sprint (NYSE: S ). The sector will probably find a solution to the intense competition, but I’ve gotten burned pretty badly by the mining sector where industry competition reached absurd levels and companies opted to focus on lowering their own costs by increasing production and driving down prices. Declining prices for the product combined with increased production and intense capital expenditures is a pretty ugly situation. Outside the Top 10 Outside of the top 10 you’ll find Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ ) as 1.64% of the portfolio. This is another great dividend company to hold. They have an effective R&D team and a global market presence. Just look at their dividend history and try to come up with a reason that this company shouldn’t be in a dividend growth portfolio: (click to enlarge) Beyond JNJ you’ll also see other dividend champions like Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT ) and Pepsi (NYSE: PEP ). The heavy exposure to dividend champions is one reason for investors to appreciate the value side of the index. Wal-Mart has been on a massive slide lately but I don’t see it getting much worse before it gets better. The market for equity can be a little too short sighted in valuations. While Wal-Mart is seeing their already thin operating margins get pressed even thinner amid higher wages, they are also the low cost leader. When Wal-Mart raises prices, the rest of the industry should follow. Who will undercut Wal-Mart? Will it be Target (NYSE: TGT )? I doubt Target really wants to do that since they raised wages also and have the same challenge. Sectors Going heavy on financials hasn’t been my style, but increasing interest rates may benefit them more than the rest of the economy. It’ll be interesting to see how much higher the Federal Reserve can push interest rates without crashing the economy. What to Add The biggest weakness here in my opinion is the relatively small position in utilities. Since utilities often have a material correlation with bonds, I’d like to see a little more utility exposure in the portfolio. An investor could modify the exposure by simply adding the Vanguard Utilities ETF (NYSEARCA: VPU ) to their portfolio when using IVE as a substantial holding. Conclusion The expense ratio is a bit high and the concentration in the financial sector is a little higher than I’d like to see. However, the rest of the portfolio exhibits some great traits with a focus on established dividend growth champions that have the size and experience to whether difficult market environments. All things considered, I think there is more to like than to dislike in this portfolio. Some investors with a very long holding period may want to look for options with slightly lower expense ratios. If investors have a shorter time frame or intend to move their positions more frequently the healthy liquidity on IVE should be attractive for creating a smaller bid-ask spread.

Junk Bond CEFs Yielding 9% And Poised To Benefit From Rising Interest Rates (Part 1)

Summary In the high yield bond carnage, there is a group of funds that has gone oversold despite their insulation from rising interest rates. These funds do not borrow money to invest, so rising interest rates will not negatively impact their net investment income (NII). There remains risk to these funds’ NAV from further declines in the bond market, but dividends are safe for all but one fund. Junk bond markets have gone through a panic and are now in a lull, although many expect more turbulence with future interest rate hikes hurting both the value of issued debts and the borrowing costs of levered closed-end funds. There is a small group of non-levered CEFs that invest in junk bonds but do not use leverage, thereby insulating themselves from higher borrowing costs that will narrow spreads and impact their net investment income in much the way that earnings are hindered by mREITs and BDCs who depend on a spread between low borrowing costs and high investment income from debts. (click to enlarge) Source: Google Finance, SEC Edgar Instead, these funds focus on the high yield market and pass on net investment income to shareholders without borrowing to boost returns. Despite that, these funds’ distribution yields are familiar to investors of levered CEFs, ranging from 4.5% to 12.28%. These funds are: the MFS Special Value Trust (NYSE: MFV ), the Putnam High Income Securities Fund (NYSE: PCF ), the Western Asset High Income Opportunity Fund (NYSE: HIO ), the Western Asset High Yield Fund (NYSE: HYI ), and the Western Asset Managed High Income Fund (NYSE: MHY ). Despite their lower risk profile, these funds have suffered declines similar to levered CEFs, with double-digit declines in the past year across the board, and most losses incurred in the last six months: (click to enlarge) Source: Google Finance With the exception of MFV, these funds were relatively strong performers and were outperforming many levered CEFs thanks to their lower risk profile until the summer. Then as yields rose sharply for high yield debt and default rates continued to rise, these funds joined the junk sell-off to reach their 52-week lows. Source: Moody’s The increase in yields is in part a result of higher defaults and credit downgrades across the market, and has also caused NAVs for these funds to fall alongside all other junk bond funds. This dynamic means that these funds’ current discount to NAV is in fact close to its highest discount in the last year, despite being near 52-week lows: (click to enlarge) Source: CEFA’s Universe Data Is the Risk There? There remains a risk that, if yields rise and bond values fall, the NAV of these funds will decline. However, there is not a commensurate risk of NII declines for two reasons. Firstly, higher borrowing costs are a non-issue for these funds. For funds that are 40% levered or more, higher borrowing costs could damage their ability to make a profit from borrowing to buy junk bonds. What’s more, funds that will need to de-lever because of fears of declining NAVs will be forced to sell off when values are plummeting, causing a similar dynamic that resulted in the shuttering of bond funds like Third Avenue’s . This is a non-issue for these non-levered CEFs. Without borrowing costs or redemptions an issue, they do not need to sell issues unless their NII-to-distribution coverage falls below 100%, which is currently not the case in any of these funds except for MFV. (I will discuss NII coverage of these funds in a future article). With the exception of MFV, this is a rare group of funds which investors can purchase without fears of declining NAVs resulting in distribution cuts. With a sustainable yield of around 9%, these funds are worth considering as an option for immediate and reliable income. Avoid MFV The only fund of this group that is under-earning its distributions is MFV. This is in part due to a recent change in its investment strategy that allows it to focus more on equities in addition to debt: The fund currently has an investment policy that MFS normally will invest the fund’s assets primarily in debt instruments. Effective on December 9, 2015, that policy will be changed to provide that MFS normally invests a majority of the fund’s assets in debt instruments. The change allows the portfolio management team greater flexibility to increase the fund’s exposure to equity securities. There are no other changes to the way the fund is being managed. The good news about this shift is that it will allow the fund to avoid the turbulence of the high yield market with greater flexibility to diversify into equities. The bad news is that this will negatively impact the fund’s immediate income and make it more dependent on capital gains-and active trading-to maintain payouts. Currently, the fund has devoted a third of its assets into equities, limiting its income producing opportunity: (click to enlarge) At the same time, the fund’s equity allocations are slightly skewed towards financial services companies; an ironic decision, considering these companies will benefit the most from rising interest rates: (click to enlarge) It is unclear why the fund’s management has decided on this shift and chosen what very may well be near the bottom of the junk bond market to do so; a decision to shift towards equities earlier in 2015 would have demonstrated much more foresight. So Which to Choose? In part 2 of this series I will discuss the credit quality and income durability of the other funds, but suffice to say for now each currently has NII in excess of its distributions, with coverage ranging from 107% to 128%: (click to enlarge) The relatively low yield on PCF, combined with its high distribution coverage, means that it is unlikely to cut dividends in the short term as it did in 2012, 2013, and 2014, but it also makes the fund’s income stream relatively low compared to HIO HYI, and MHY. In the cases of these funds, distribution coverage is currently solid, making any of these a worthwhile addition to a diversified high yield income portfolio.

The Time To Hedge Is Now! December 2015 Update

Summary Overview of strategy series and why I hedge. Short summary of how the strategy has worked so far. Some new positions I want to consider. Discussion of risk involved in this hedge strategy. Back to Do Not Rely On Gold Strategy Overview If you are new to this series, you will likely find it useful to refer back to the original articles, all of which are listed with links in this instablog . It may be more difficult to follow the logic without reading Parts I, II and IV. In Part I of this series, I provided an overview of a strategy to protect an equity portfolio from heavy losses in a market crash. In Part II, I provided more explanation of how the strategy works and gave the first two candidate companies to choose from as part of a diversified basket using put option contracts. I also provided an explanation of the candidate selection process and an example of how it can help grow both capital and income over the long term. Part III provided a basic tutorial on options. Part IV explained my process for selecting options and Part V explained why I prefer to not use ETFs for hedging. Parts VI through IX primarily provide additional candidates for use in the strategy. Part X explains my rules that guide my exit strategy. All of the articles in this series include varying views that I consider to be worthy of contemplation regarding possible triggers that could lead to another sizeable market correction. I want to make it very clear that I am NOT predicting a market crash. I merely like to take some of the pain out of the downside to make it easier to stick to my investing plan: select superior companies that have sustainable advantages, consistently rising dividends and excellent long-term growth prospects. Then I like to hold onto those investments unless the fundamental reasons for which I bought them in the first place changes. Investing long term works! If you are interested in a more detailed explanation of my investment philosophy, please consider reading ” How I Created My Own Portfolio Over a Lifetime .” Why I Hedge If the market (and your portfolio) drops by 50 percent, you will need to double your assets from the new lower level just to get back to even. I prefer to avoid such pain, both financial and emotional. If the market drops by 50 percent and I only lose 20 percent (but keep collecting my dividends all the while), I only need a gain of 25 percent to get back to even. That is much easier to accomplish than doubling a portfolio and takes less time. Trust me, I have done it both ways, and losing less puts me way ahead of the crowd when the dust settles. I view insurance, like hedging, as a necessary evil to avoid significant financial setbacks. From my point of view, those who do not hedge are trying to time the market, in my humble opinion. They intend to sell when the market turns but always buy the dips. While buying the dips is a sound strategy, it does not work well when the “dip” evolves into a full-blown bear market. At that point, the eternal bull finds himself catching the proverbial rain of falling knives as his/her portfolio tanks. Then panic sets in and the typical investor sells when they should be getting ready to buy. A short summary of how the strategy has worked so far I have been hedged since April 2014. In 2014, our only significant candidate win was Terex (NYSE: TEX ) which provided gains of over 600 percent to help offset some of my cost. I missed taking some profits in October of 2014 that could have put me in the black for the year, but by doing so, I would have left my portfolio too exposed, so I let most of those positions expire worthless. It is insurance, after all. The results for 2015 have been stellar! I like it when the market gives me a gain in early December because the likelihood of a year-end (Santa Claus) rally is very high and will usually give me an opportunity to redeploy the profits before the rest of my positions expire. I could have taken more gains but decided to leave some on the table in case the rally did not materialize to keep my portfolio mostly protected. I explained all my moves in the last article of the series linked at the top. My biggest winners in 2015 were Men’s Wearhouse (NYSE: MW ) with gains of over 2,700 percent, Micron Technologies (NASDAQ: MU ) with gains of up to 1,012 percent, Sotheby’s (NYSE: BID ) with gains of up to 1,500 percent, Seagate Technologies (NASDAQ: STX ) gaining over 570 percent, and Williams-Sonoma (NYSE: WSM ) with a gain of 527 percent. The gains realized on sold positions now puts me in a position of needing to add some hedges going into 2016, but with plenty of available cash. I will only deploy enough of those gains to protect my portfolio through the end of June 2016 and hold onto the rest to be deployed into new positions to provide a hedge through January 2017. Some new positions I want to consider Do not forget that I usually buy multiple positions in each candidate that I use and you should, too, unless you get in at a particularly good premium and strike. I add positions as I find I can do better than what I already own in order to improve my overall hedge. Sometimes I may buy only half or a third of the position I intend to own in the first purchase. As we get deeper into this bull market (if it still is a bull), I try to stay closer to fully hedged as much as possible. I will be hedging most of my portfolio again over the next month or so since most of my remaining positions are set to expire in mid-January of 2016. I cannot emphasize this enough: buy put options on strong rally days! Here is the list of what I would buy next and the premiums at which I would make the purchases. I may get in if the premium gets down close to my buy price and you will need to make such decisions for yourself. This is a different format from what I have used prior to this month. I will be placing good until cancelled orders at or just below my target premiums to get the positions I want when available without my having to watch daily. I list the candidates in the order of my preference. I will explain how many contracts per $100,000 of portfolio value will be needed and list the expiration months below the table. Symbol Current Price Target Price Strike Price Ask Prem Buy At Prem Poss. % Gain Tot. Est. $ Hedge % Cost of Portfolio RCL $99.92 $22 $75 $1.85 $1.80 2,844 $5,120 0.180% GT $32.79 $8 $28 $1.25 $1.25 1,500 $3,750 0.250% ADSK $61.85 $24 $50 $2.03 $1.80 1,344 $4,840 0.360% SIX $54.63 $20 $45 $1.30 $1.20 1,983 $4,760 0.240% LB $96.82 $30 $85 $2.65 $2.50 2,100 $5,250 0.250% LVLT $54.40 $20 $48 $2.20 $1.90 1,374 $2,610 0.190% TPX $71.64 $20 $60 $2.85 $2.50 1,500 $3,750 0.250% UAL $59.78 $18 $50 $2.29 $2.00 1,500 $3,000 0.200% MAS $28.44 $10 $25 $1.25 $0.85 1,665 $4,245 0.255% ETFC $29.71 $7 $27 $1.87 $1.25 1,500 $3,750 0.250% I will need only one June 2016 RCL put option contract to provide the coverage indicated in the above table. Remember that this is one of eight positions, each designed to hedge one-eighth of a $100,000 portfolio against a 30 percent drop in the S&P 500 Index. I will need eight positions from the table above to protect each $100,000 of equity portfolio value. To protect a $500,000 portfolio, I would need to multiply the number of contracts in each of my five positions by five to be fully protected. Below is a list of the expiration month (all expire in 2016) and number contracts needed for each position I use. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (NYSE: RCL ) June One Goodyear Tire (NASDAQ: GT ) July Two Autodesk (NASDAQ: ADSK ) July Two Six Flags (NYSE: SIX ) June Two L Brands (NYSE: LB ) May One Level 3 Communications (NYSE: LVLT ) June One Tempur Sealy (NYSE: TPX ) June One United Continental (NYSE: UAL ) June One Masco (NYSE: MAS ) July Three E – Trade Financial (NASDAQ: ETFC ) June Two If I use only the first eight positions listed above, I would protect each $100,000 of equity portfolio value against a drop of approximately $33,080 for a cost of $1,920 (plus commissions). What this means is that if the market falls by 30 percent, my hedge positions should more than offset the losses to my portfolio. This coverage only provides about six months of additional protection, but I have more than double that from my gains taken this year. Hopefully, there will more gains available to further offset future losses come summer and I will roll my positions again (and again, if necessary) until we finally have a recession. Both MAS and ETFC “Buy at Premiums” listed above are below the range of the current bid and ask premiums. That was the case with all of the premiums I used in the last article and most of those have been achieved already. Patience often pays off in lower costs. All of the other premiums listed are within the current range and should be available either immediately or with a small additional rally. I do not intend to chase these premiums and will try to get lower premiums when available. I expect that the current rally could extend into year-end giving me a better entry point on some of these candidates and possibly some others that just do not work at this level. I will provide another update if that opportunity occurs. But I am not ready to take that possibility to the bank, so I will place some orders Monday morning. I do not try to hedge the bond portion of my portfolio with equity options. For those who would like to hedge against a rout in high-yield bonds, I use options on JNK and may add HYG as a candidate for that purpose. If that seems interesting, please consider my recent article on the subject. Discussion of risk involved in this hedge strategy If an investor decides to employ this hedge strategy, each individual needs to do some additional due diligence to identify which candidates they wish to use and which contracts are best suited for their respective risk tolerance. I do not always choose the option contract with the highest possible gain or the lowest cost. I should also point out that in many cases I will own several different contracts with different strikes on one company. I do so because as the strike rises, the hedge kicks in sooner, but I buy a mix to keep the overall cost down. To accomplish this, I generally add new positions at the new strikes over time, especially when the stock is near its recent high. My goal is to commit approximately two percent (but up to three percent, if necessary) of my portfolio value to this hedge per year. If we need to roll positions before expiration there may be additional costs involved, so I try to hold down costs for each round that is necessary. My expectation is that this represents the last time we should need to roll positions before we see the benefit of this strategy work more fully. We have been fortunate enough this past year to have ample gains to cover our hedge costs for the next year. The previous year, we were able to reduce the cost to below one percent due to gains taken. Thus, over the full 20 months since I began writing this series, our total cost to hedge has turned out to be less than one percent. I want to discuss risk for a moment now. Obviously, if the market continues higher beyond January 2016, all of our old January expiration option contracts that we have open could expire worthless. I have never found insurance offered for free. We could lose all of our initial premiums paid plus commissions, except for those gains we have already collected. If I expected that to happen, I would not be using the strategy myself. But it is one of the potential outcomes and readers should be aware of it. I have already begun to initiate another round of put options for expiration beyond January 2016, using up to two percent of my portfolio (fully offset this year by realized gains) to hedge for another year. The longer the bulls maintain control of the market the more the insurance is likely to cost me. But I will not be worrying about the next crash. Peace of mind has a cost. I just like to keep it as low as possible. Because of the uncertainty in terms of how much longer this bull market can be sustained and the potential risk versus reward potential of hedging versus not hedging, it is my preference to risk a small percentage of my principal (perhaps as much as two percent per year) to insure against losing a much larger portion of my capital (30 to 50 percent). But this is a decision that each investor needs to make for themselves. I do not commit more than three percent of my portfolio value to an initial hedge strategy position and have never committed more than ten percent to such a strategy in total before a major market downturn has occurred. The ten percent rule may come into play when a bull market continues much longer than expected (like five years instead of 18 months). And when the bull continues for longer than is supported by the fundamentals, the bear that follows is usually deeper than it otherwise would have been. In other words, at this point, I would expect the next bear market to be more like the last two, especially if the market continues higher through all of 2016. Anything is possible but if I am right, protecting a portfolio becomes ever more important as the bull market continues. As always, I welcome comments and will try to address any concerns or questions either in the comments section or in a future article as soon as I can. The great thing about Seeking Alpha is that we can agree to disagree and, through respectful discussion, learn from each other’s experience and knowledge.