Tag Archives: marketing

HACK: Too Much Industry Hype, Too Little Fundamental Support

Summary Cyber-security market top line growth doesn’t necessarily translate to profit growth for companies. Most companies are still spending a large portion of gross profit on R&D for new software/hardware solutions and marketing & selling to boost brand recognition and gain market shares. Until the industry consolidates and SG&A costs stabilize, it’s hard for these companies to retain profits. Recommendation: Sell Although the cybersecurity market is expected to grow at a phenomenal rate, in my opinion it doesn’t necessarily translate to profit growth for companies. Since cybersecurity is a relatively new industry, most companies are still spending a large portion of gross profit on R&D for new software/hardware solutions and marketing & selling to boost brand recognition and gain market shares, resulting in negative bottom line for most companies. Choppy as the cash flow from operation (CFO) growth is, most cybersecurity companies have positive operating cash flow and incur little CapEx. Going forward, keeping up with hacker’s technology requires constant R&D spending on upgrading and updating technology, and large marketing & selling expense to compete for market shares remains a headwind for these companies in this highly fragmented market. Until the industry consolidates and SG&A costs stabilize, it’s hard for these companies to retain profits. ETF Info Price 27.16 52 Wk H 33.91 52 Wk L 18.29 30D Avg Volume 396,270 Market Cap 1,114,917,969 Shares Out 41.05 Return YTD 3.66% Excess Return YTD -1.97% Tracking Error 1.70 Inception Date 11/12/2014 Expense Ratio 0.75% ETF Summary The PureFunds ISE Cyber Security™ ETF (NYSEARCA: HACK ) tracks the price and yield performance of the ISE Cyber Security™ Index, which includes companies or ADRs that are hardware/software developers for cyber security (“Infrastructure Providers”) or non-development service providers (“Service Providers”). The ISE Cyber Security index assigns weights to companies according to category (“Infrastructure providers”/”service providers”) and then is adjusted according to liquidity and market cap. For more information, you can refer to the PureFunds website . Companies Updates When looking at financial statements of the holding companies, other than 6 companies that had negative sales growth for the past year (~-5%), 26 companies had 10%+ sales growth with on average 70% gross margin. A large chunk of gross profit goes to R&D and Selling & Marketing expenses, resulting in negative profit margin for some of the companies. The gap between sales growth and net income growth is largely attributable to SG&A spending. Most of these companies don’t incur much CAPEX and have positive free cash flow when adding back non-cash charges (mostly stock-based compensation and debt amortization). However, the stock-based compensation is a meaningful real expense and will likely to continue due to continuous talent acquisitions. Operating cash flow growths are choppy and unpredictable. These companies have a median forward PE of 22.7x and average forward PE of 40x (vs. S&P 500 average 18.7x forward PE). Among the top 10 holdings, 5 are experiencing fast sales growth for the past several years, 4 have stagnant growth, and 1 had negative growth (shown later in this article). MIN MAX MEDIAN AVERAGE S&P 500 Sales growth (%, FY) -23.2 163.5 8.2 16.1 Net Income growth (%, FY) -2620.1 1865.2 -11.4 -70.9 EBITDA growth (%, FY) -230.5 123.6 5.2 -14.5 CFO growth (%, FY) -122.4 302.8 3.7 21.3 FY Gross margin 9% 95% 76% 67% FY EBITDA margin (adj) -89% 62% 11% 8% FY Operating margin -111% 56% 9% 4% FY Net margin -112% 44% 5% -1% FY CFO/sales -31% 59% 19% 18% FY FCF/sales -47% 56% 14% 14% FY capex -3879.7 -1.4 -14.5 -244.8 FY FCF/capex -2.9 60.7 4.4 8.0 PE(forward) 13.7 312.1 22.7 40.4 18.7 PB 0.9 38.8 5.1 7.5 2.8 *data gathered from yahoo finance and Bloomberg, compiled by author Looking at the table above, the median sales growth is 8%, meaning more than 50% of these companies are doing fine on the top-line. However, median net profit growth is negative, meaning profits for more than 50% of the companies are shrinking. Would you buy into an industry where profits for companies are stagnant or shrinking? Probably not. What worsens the situation is the assigned weights. This ETF is almost as if it’s assigning equal weight to all the companies – the largest holding is 4% and the smallest is

New Jersey Resources’ (NJR) CEO Larry Downes on Q4 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

New Jersey Resources Corporation (NYSE: NJR ) Q4 2015 Earnings Conference Call November 24, 2015 10:00 ET Executives Dennis Puma – Director, Investor Relations Larry Downes – Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Glenn Lockwood – Chief Financial Officer Operator Good morning, everyone and welcome to the New Jersey Resources Fiscal 2015 and Year End Conference Call. All participants will be in a listen-only mode. [Operator Instructions] Please also note that today’s event is being recorded. At this time, I would like to turn the conference call over to Mr. Dennis Puma, Director of Investor Relations. Sir, please go ahead. Dennis Puma Thank you, Jamie. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to New Jersey Resources’ fiscal 2015 year end conference call and webcast. I am joined here today by Larry Downes, our Chairman and CEO, Glenn Lockwood, our Chief Financial Officer, as well as other members of our senior management team. As you know, certain statements in today’s call contain estimates and other forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. We wish to caution listeners of this call that the assumptions forming the basis for forward-looking statements include many factors that are beyond NJR’s ability to control or estimate precisely, which could cause results to materially differ from the company’s expectations. A list of these items can be found, but is not limited to items in the forward-looking statements section of today’s news release filed on Form 8-K and in our most recent 10-K filed with the SEC. Both of these items can be found at sec.gov. NJR does not, by including the statement, assume any obligation to review or revise any particular forward-looking statement referenced herein in light of future events. I would also like to point out that there are slides accompanying today’s presentation, which are available on our website and were also filed on our Form 8-K this morning. With that said, I would like to turn the call over to our Chairman and CEO, Larry Downes. Larry? Larry Downes Thanks, Dennis. Good morning, everyone and thank you for joining us today. For those of you who have seen this morning’s earnings release, you know that our fiscal 2015 performance was strong and exceeded our original expectations. Before I begin, I would like to note a number of changes that we have made to our leadership team which I believe have strengthened us for the future. First of all, Amanda Mullan joined us in April. Amanda serves as our Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer. And also as we announced on November 11, Patrick Migliaccio will assume the role of Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. And Tom Massaro will become Senior Vice President of Marketing, Energy Efficiency and Customer Services. Those will be effective January 1, 2016. I am sure you wonder what’s happening to Glenn. He is currently planning to retire in January of 2017 and is with us here today. I also wanted to focus on our half-day conference that we had with the financial community on October 21 and say that I am grateful to those who attended. During that session, we were able to do a deep dive on all of our businesses, including clean energy ventures and I would like to invite everyone to review our presentations from that day, in particular, the slides that discussed to sell the renewable energy certificate market in New Jersey. We spent a good deal of time at the investor conference talking about the strategy of clean energy ventures and really going a little bit deeper than we have in the past on some of the key drivers of clean energy ventures performance. During my presentation this morning, I will be discussing our future and I will be making forward-looking statements. Our actual results will be affected by many risk factors, including those listed on Slide 1. The complete list is included in our 10-K and as always I would encourage you to please take the time to review those risk factors carefully. And I would also note that these risks are derived from our annual assessment performed as part of our enterprise risk management program. Also as noted on Slide 2, I will be referring to certain non-GAAP measures such as net financial earnings, or NFE as I discuss our results. We believe that NFE provides more complete understanding of our financial performance. However, I would stress that NFE is not intended to be a substitute for GAAP. The non-GAAP measures that we use are discussed more fully in Item 7 of our 10-K and again I would encourage to please review that disclosure carefully as well. Moving to Slide 3, you can see that fiscal 2015 was another strong year for New Jersey Resources. Our net financial earnings per share, was $1.78 that exceeded our original expectations. You will recall that we raised guidance three times during fiscal 2015 because of the solid performance from NJR Energy Services. In fiscal 2015, we provided our shareholders with a very strong 22.8% total return, which exceeded our peer group average. Our strong performance allowed us to increase our dividend in September by 6.7% to an annual rate of $0.96 per share. We have now raised our dividend 22 times during the last two decades. It was another year of extensive investment in the infrastructure by New Jersey Natural Gas and we spent about $179 million for customer growth and to improve reliability and resiliency of our system. The better than forecasted performance of NJR Energy Services over the past two years has enhanced our earnings retention by about $94 million, which has strengthened our financial profile and reduced the need for future equity issuances. Turning to Slide 4 continuing with the highlights of fiscal 2015, as the economy improved throughout our service territory, we saw a 3.4% increase in customer additions in fiscal 2015. Our constructive regulatory relationships with the Board of Public Utilities allowed us to extend both our SAVEGREEN project and our BGSS incentive programs. In September, we exchange our 5.53% interest in the Iroquois pipeline for Dominion Midstream Partners units, that transaction allowed us to diversify our midstream portfolio. And through the diversification of our distributed power portfolio, we continued our ITC transition strategy. In particular, our residential solar program, The Sunlight Advantage now serves nearly 4,000 customers and our second wind project, the Carroll Area project in Iowa was completed. And then finally, NJR Energy Services strong results were supported by short-term volatility and our team’s ability to create value from extreme market conditions. On Slide 5, before I get into reviewing the results for the year, we filed our base rate case on November 13 as the Board of Public Utilities requested when they improved our SAFE infrastructure program in 2012. The $147.6 million rate increase request is primarily to recover cost that we have incurred to improve our system and customer growth. As you can see, we have included the details of the forecasted rate base and cost of capital on this slide and the BPU rate case process typically takes about 12 months that we hope to have new rates in the first quarter of fiscal 2017. Moving to Slide 6, as I said this morning, we announced net financial earnings of $151.5 million, or $1.78 per share for fiscal 2015 that number compared with $176.9 million or $2.10 per share last year. And I think as everyone knows, our fiscal 2015 earnings are at the upper end of our guidance range. Last year as you know, NJR Energy Services had an outstanding year, strong performance again this year, but you can see that when you look at the earnings chart, Glenn is going to review our segment results in more detail shortly, but in looking at our results, you can see that our primary business has performed very well. Our better-than-expected fiscal 2015 NFE performance was driven by improved performance by NJR Energy Services compared with our original NFE guidance as I said although it was lower than fiscal 2014, they had another excellent year. We saw steady growth from our two regulated businesses New Jersey Natural Gas and NJR Midstream and we had a solid contribution from clean energy ventures. Moving to Slide 7, this morning we also announced our net financial earnings guidance for fiscal 2016 in the range of $1.55 to $1.65 per share that is consistent with our goal of average annual net financial earnings growth of 5% to 9% and that uses fiscal 2013 as the base. As you can see, when you look at the pie chart, we expect our regulated businesses, New Jersey Natural Gas and NJR Midstream to contribute between 65% and 80% of our fiscal 2016 net financial earnings. I think it’s also important to note that we expect at this point that NJR Energy Services will contribute between 5% and 15% of net financial earnings, which is consistent with our results in recent years prior to their fiscal 2014 and 2015 performance. And then moving to Slide 8, we give you a summary of our forecasted net financial earnings through fiscal 2018. As you can see, we currently expect 5% to 9% average annual NFE growth. Again, we use fiscal 2013 as our base year. But I think importantly, you can see that the majority of our earnings will come from our regulated businesses. And as we have been pointing up the last several years, our reliance on investment tax credits continues to decline. As you look at the bar chart and you see the earnings above the red line in fiscal 2014 and ‘15 illustrate the $94 million of better than expected earnings retention as a result of NJRES’ strong performance. The forecast assumes that we will experience levels of weather and volatility similar to the past 4 years prior to fiscal 2014. I emphasize that point, because we do want investors to focus on the 5% to 15% that we expect from NJRES and the assumptions that are making up that range. On Slide 9 as I mentioned earlier, in September we raised our dividend by 6.7%. Our goal remains to maintain a dividend growth rate of 6% to 8% annually with payout ratio of 60% to 65%. We believe that our dividend growth goal will exceed our peers, while generating an earning retention rate that will allow us to support both our capital spending programs and future earnings growth. And moving to Slide 10, we show our current capital expenditure forecast through fiscal 2018, which includes total capital investment of more than $1.4 billion. As you can see when you look at the components of that spending, our expectation is that between 60% and 70% of our capital will be invested in our regulated utility and midstream assets. And as we have planned, our solar spending declines. So with that, I will now turn the call over to Glenn and he will review the details of our financial performance. Glenn? Glenn Lockwood Thanks Larry and good morning everyone. I will take a few minutes to review the results of each of our businesses. The increase in utility firm gross margin that we show on Slide 11 for both the fourth fiscal quarter and the year, it is due primarily to the impact of our infrastructure investments that are earning an immediate return, SAVEGREEN, customer growth and incentive programs. NJNG’s NFE for the year was $76.3 million compared with $74.2 million in fiscal ‘14 and was driven by that growth in utility gross margin. For the three months, NJNG reported net financial loss of $7.2 million compared with a net financial of $5.4 million, the leak of the fourth quarter results reflect an increase in our overall state income tax rate. We added 7,858 new customers to our system in fiscal ‘15, 3.4% more than the prior year with approximately half of those customers converting from other fuels primarily fuel oil. These new and conversion customers are expected to contribute approximately $4.5 million annually to utility gross margin. Our BGSS incentive programs had a very strong year, adding $0.12 per share to earnings. Since inception, these programs have saved customers approximately $800 million and provided share owners with an average of $0.05 per share annually. Slide 12 illustrates some of the customer growth numbers I just mentioned. We expect customer growth additions for fiscal ‘16 through fiscal ‘18 of 24,000 to 27,000 represented an annual new customer growth rate of about 1.6%. Moving to Slide 13, working collaboratively with our regulators remains an essential element of our strategy. We have spoken about all of the programs before, so I will just highlight a few. Our BGSS incentive programs, which are comprised of our off-system sales capacity release programs and our storage incentive program have saved customers money and provided our share owners with additional NFE. SAVEGREEN, our energy-efficiency program provides grants, incentives to customers to install high-efficiency equipment. SAVEGREEN is in place for June of 2017 and supports New Jersey’s energy efficiency goals, while helping both customers and share owners. We opened two public NGV fuel stations in late fiscal 2015; One at waste management facility in Toms River in Ocean County. And the second as Short Point Distributing Company’s facility in Freehold in Monmouth County. A third CNG station in Monmouth County is expected to open by the end of the current quarter. NJNG is authorized to earn an overall return of 7.1% on these stations including a 10.3% return on equity. Turning to Slide 14, you can see the impacts at our customer growth and regulatory initiatives, is currently expected to have on NJNG’s gross margins over the next 3 years. Customer growth will remain the largest contributor to the utility gross margin and we will also receive important contributions from SAVEGREEN and our BGSS incentive programs. Moving to Slide 15, midstream NFE totaled $9.8 million in fiscal 2015 compared with $7.5 million last year. The increase reflects higher revenue associated with better results at both Steckman Ridge and Iroquois. As Larry mentioned in September, we exchanged our 5.53% interest in Iroquois for $1.84 million common units of Dominion Midstream Partners. By doing so, NJR Midstream diversified portfolio would stake in other Dominion Midstream investments such as its preferred equity interest in the Cove Point LNG facility as well as other DM assets. This exchange generated a pretax gain of $24.6 million that is deferred and will be recognized as income win and if the partnership units are sold in the future. PennEast Pipeline, which we have a 20% interest filed its 7c application with FERC in September. NFE from NJR Midstream is expected to remain at between 5% and 10%. Turning to Slide 16, fiscal 2015 NFE at NJRES totaled $42.1 million compared with $79.7 million in fiscal ‘14. Our better than expected results were primarily driven by cold weather that created short-term increases in natural gas demand as well as price volatility, which in turn generated higher than expected gross margin. In the fourth quarter, NJRES experienced a smaller net financial loss of $5.4 million compared to $10.4 million last year. The quarterly results reflect a seasonal nature of RES’ business as well as lower operating and maintenance costs in fiscal ‘14 that did not recur. Our team has done an excellent job meeting our customers’ needs during periods of extreme weather and it’s developed a portfolio competitively priced storage and transportation assets. According to Natural Gas Intelligence, we are now the 16th largest gas marketer in North America. Moving to Slide 17, fiscal 2015 NFE at NJRCEV totaled $20.1 million compared with $12.7 million in fiscal ‘14. The higher results were due primarily to increased investment tax credits from solar capital expenditures placed into service during the year. We placed five grid connected commercial systems into service with a total capacity of 26.5 megawatts. We also invested $25 million in fiscal ‘15 in our Sunlight Advantage program, our residential solar lease program, which provides savings to eligible homeowners. The Sunlight Advantage program added 829 customers with 7.8 megawatts in fiscal ‘15 bringing the total number of customers almost 4,000 and growing its portfolio to more than 35.3 megawatts. Current total capacity of all of CEV solar projects is now 117.7 megawatts, which produces approximately 145,000 SRECs annually. Turning to Slide 18, we continue to build out our inventory of solar projects, while we construct our third wind project. Our strategy is focused on diversification of investments across this business. We have built a strong portfolio of New Jersey based solar programs, including both net metered projects in the commercial and residential markets as well as largest scale wholesale grid connected projects. We had advanced our diversification into onshore wind with projects across the country in Montana, Iowa and Kansas. Wind assets now comprise about 20% of our portfolio that can service. When our third project the Alexander Wind Farm goes into service next month, wind will represent almost 40% of our portfolio. On Slide 19, you can see that monthly solar capacity additions have declined significantly from the peak in early 2012, which combined with the annual increase in the renewable portfolio standards have supported a corresponding increase in SREC prices shown on the graph on the right. Since our Investor Day last month, SREC prices have increased from to $230 range to $275, with prices today right around $260. We believe these fundamentals will continue to support stable SREC prices in the future. In addition as shown on Slide 20, we have been actively hedging our expected SREC sales. We are currently 89% hedged for fiscal ‘16, as you can see from the chart and have been actively hedging for future years. The red line represents SRECs to be generated from our existing portfolio, so you see that fiscal ‘16 for example, we are effectively 100% hedged of our existing capacity. We believe that increase in the number of SRECs to be generated, the expectation of continued strength in SREC prices, the impact of our hedging program and expected earnings from our wind investments all support our forecast of 10% to 20% of our total NFE covenant from CEV in fiscal ‘16 and beyond and will result in a successful transition when the ITC drops from 30% to 10% on January 1, 2017. Turning to Slide 21, NJR Home Services NFE totaled $2.4 million in fiscal ‘15, about flat with fiscal ‘14 reflecting slightly lower installation revenues. We expect their NFE contribution to range between 1% and 3% in fiscal ‘16. And looking at our cash flow forecast on Slide 22, you can see the future benefits of the higher than expected earnings that we generated in both ‘14 and ‘15. We believe that our capital program can be properly financed over the next three years with a modest amount of newer equity, while maintaining appropriate credit metrics for our current ratings. The forecasted equity requirements you see have been reduced by about 50% because of those higher than expected earnings in both ‘14 and ‘15. Now, I will turn the call back to Larry for his closing comments. Larry Downes Thanks, Glenn. I want to conclude our call this morning with a review of our key strategic initiatives for fiscal ‘16, ‘17 and ‘18. Many of you recall that the format on Slide 23 was originally introduced at our 2014 Investor Conference in October that year. And it summarizes our key initiatives that support our annual 5% to 9% net financial earnings and 6% to 8% dividend growth targets. So to summarize that, our growth plan through fiscal 2018 was based upon strong customer growth, infrastructure investments and regulatory initiatives at New Jersey Natural Gas that will benefit both our customers and shareowners. We want to take advantage of expected natural gas price demand growth – natural gas demand growth and price volatility at NJR Energy services, while providing producer and asset management services. We are focused as you know on diversifying Clean Energy Ventures distributed power portfolio combined with improving SREC market fundamentals to provide steady income streams and expanding on midstream strategy, including PennEast. And we believe that when you look at these fundamentals, they remain strong and provide opportunities for future growth. And as I close, I also want to say thank you to our nearly 1,000 employees for their continued hard work and dedication. Without their efforts, we would not have achieved the excellent results we have reported to you this morning. Our employees are the foundation of our company and I am grateful for what they do for us every single day. So, I want to thank you for your time today. I wish you all the best for a happy Thanksgiving. And we are now ready for your questions and comments. Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS. If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: transcripts@seekingalpha.com . Thank you!

Exclusive Interview With Paul Yook, BioShares’ Portfolio Manager

Summary I interview Paul Yook, the portfolio manager of BioShares. We spoke about the BioShares Biotechnology Clinical Trials ETF (BBC). This ETF offers investors pure exposure to the biotech market without exposure to special pharmaceutical companies. After my article on iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF (NASDAQ: IBB ) portfolio strategy, many readers have asked about other biotech ETFs that could act as replacements for IBB. Though my first reaction is to say ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF (NYSEARCA: SBIO ) because I was previously long on SBIO, I realized I don’t know much of the differences among the different biotech stocks. SBIO is often brought up when BioShares Biotechnology Clinical Trials ETF (NASDAQ: BBC ) is mentioned, but much of the information on BBC – and the differences between it and SBIO – seem to be elusive, at least online. So, I scheduled an interview with Paul Yook, the portfolio manager of BBC to ask him more about this little-known biotech ETF. The interview follows. Q : Because most drugs fail their clinical trials, many of the holdings in BioShares Biotechnology Clinical Trials ETF will likely fall, requiring the handful of winners to compensate for the losses. What is the likelihood of such compensation? PY : Great question. Let’s keep in mind that most publicly trading biotech companies have a number of shots on goals. Though the majority of products fail, most companies have follow-on products. So, companies have multiple compounds focusing on the same downstream target. And they’ll have multiple programs – different disease targets and drug candidates. So it doesn’t necessarily require the lead product or one individual product to make a successful drug. There are a number of successful publicly traded companies such as Regeneron (NASDAQ: REGN ) who had a number of failures in their early years but ended up being successful investments over time. So, when you ask the odds of successful investments in biotech, we believe that diversification through a variety of investments is important. It is really difficult to pick a single winning stock and stomaching the volatility that goes with investing in biotech. Having a diverse basket is really important in investing in clinical stage companies. Q : So basically, all of the holdings you have in BBC have multiple shots at success? PY : They do because – again every company is different – most publicly trading companies have a diverse pipeline. In addition, these management teams really are portfolio managers in a way. They are assessing the risk of these programs over time. And they can pivot: They can move into another program; they can acquire a program; they can change their scientific approach. You’re really investing in a management team, just as you are in an individual drug or portfolio of drugs. Q : If I’m not mistaken, BBC removes a company from their holdings if that company doesn’t currently have a drug in a clinical trial, correct? PY : Exactly right. BBC invests in companies with lead companies in phases I, II, and III. Q : What is your stance on the increasing failure rate of clinical trials? PY : As far as clinical trials over time, there is variability from year to year. Some of the scientific approaches we’ve seen have sped up the time it takes to get a drug approved, starting from inception or conception of the idea. There are other disease categories such as heart failure or stroke that have had very poor statistical results. We look at failure rate across category. We believe investing across these categories is the most prudent way to invest. Q : So you’re looking at the failure for each type of drug instead of simply clinical trials in general? PY : Exactly. Certain categories tend to be of lower risk. For example, if a company is developing an enzyme replacement therapy for a genetic disease, it will tend to have a very high success rate because the biology of such a therapy is well known. Q : In general, what are the criteria you use to pick your holdings? PY : Our criteria for our index funds are rules-based. They are really very simple. We first screen for biotech companies that are primarily focused on human therapeutic drugs. There are other companies that focus on other industries, such as specialty pharmaceuticals, diagnostics, or life science tools. We exclude these from our biotech funds because we believe biotech ETFs should give investors biotech-only exposure. We also screen companies that have a minimize size and liquidity: 250 million in market cap and $200 million of average traded volume. This way we exclude smaller companies that have problems with financing and capital. Of course, our main criterion is that the company being in the clinical trial stage. We split the universe up into the companies in that early stage, which go into BBC, from the later stage companies that go into the BBP fund. Q : Seeing as BBC is not actively managed, how much weight should investors give to the biotech specialists behind this ETF? PY : I have been involved in active management, and what I find in the investment universe today is that biotech investors have become very knowledgeable. What you have today is many scientists at large institutions such as hedge funds and mutual funds. You also have highly sophisticated retail individuals active on blogs and Twitter. I think the playing field has become much more equalized, and the market has become much more efficient for biotech investing. I think the differential between active and management has really narrowed. In many ways, I think there’s an edge to investing in passive strategies. What we’ve seen is what I call “alpha destruction” from active studies. There was a Bloomberg study in the summer that looked at a variety of healthcare and biotech hedge funds and mutual funds, finding them to underperform the passive ETF strategies. Of course, active strategies also have negative tax ramifications, lockup minimums, and liquidity issues. This has been widely written about. There are large advantages in passive, ETF strategies. I believe that passive strategies really help investors avoid some of the pitfalls of those active strategies. A lot of investors tend to sell out of fear, whereas passive strategies by rule avoid that pitfall. Q : Right. I think a lot of investors are looking for ETFs because of the lower management fees involved. BBC charges 0.85%. In addition, many investors don’t have the science background to make good choices in the biotech market, which is why it’s important for an ETF to employ specialists in index creation. So for BBC, what is the general background of your fund’s biotech specialists? PY : Keep in mind that we do have a passive strategy. I did lay out our rules, which are fairly simple. But it is important that we manage our own index. We employ 25 specialists, both biotech and industry specialists. We look for people with a passion in investing in biotech and currently have 6 Ph.D. level scientists. We have a wide variety of investment and capital market experience, from investment banks and equity research to hedge funds and mutual funds. The reason it’s important to have specialists creating our biotech indexes is because we employ a level of understanding in the creation of these indexes. Most indexes today date back to the 1990s. At that time, the biotech industry was in its infancy. It was unclear the direction the industry was heading. It was also unclear what the eventual profit model would be. Back then, we saw sub-industries like genomics and stem cell technologies that people didn’t really understand. Today, the industry is very different. There are many sub-segments of the biotech industry. We apply a lot more understanding of the nuances of the industry and have designed truly investable, broad indexes. Q : I am currently long on ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF. Convince me to switch to BBC. PY : I think anyone who’s invested in any other biotech fund has probably had a very good experience because the biotech industry has made a lot of technological advances and financial results over the five years. I wouldn’t want to convince anyone to move out of a biotech stock, mutual fund, or competing ETF. But I think it’s important to understand the differences between the investments. Our funds are unique, and it’s important to understand that. Our funds are equally weighted, which means that no company will be an outsized exposure. Biotech is very interesting because you will usually have outsized weighting to an individual drug, regardless of company size. Gilead (NASDAQ: GILD ) showed that to investors about a year ago, last December, when there were pricing concerns that surfaced for its largest drug – Sovaldi and Harvoni for hepatitis C. Within two trading days, Gilead traded down 19%. To have a $150 billion market cap company show that volatility really does show that market cap weighting tends to increase volatility. So, as you can imagine, there are a number of market-weighted biotech ETFs, and they showed higher-than-normal volatility during that period. I think splitting up the risk into the higher-volatility BBC fund and the lower-volatility BBP fund is important because we view them as totally different asset classes: high-risk biotech and low-risk biotech. Some people will want a mix of them; others will want to focus their exposure to these asset classes separately. And because you asked, a third important feature of our fund is that we give people pure biotech exposure. By design, we have excluded special pharmaceuticals, which have been knocked on lately. I think specialty pharma can be good, but some have had political scrutiny these days. It’s important to differentiate these two types of companies because specialty pharma tends to invest 5 to 10% of sales in R&D, whereas biotech companies – even very large ones such as Biogen (NASDAQ: BIIB ) – will invest more than 20% of their sales into R&D. Therefore, specialty pharma companies do not exist in the BBC fund. I think probably every other ETF fund does contain these companies. A lot of other biotech companies have become diluted in what BBC holds because of the emergence of the mega biotech company, such as Biogen or Gilead, as well as the specialty pharma model, such as Horizon, whom we would not classify as a biotech company. Q : Final question: What would you say to an investor who believes the biotech industry is currently a bubble? PY : Well, I think that we have had a 30% or more correction over the past few months and that the long-term growth prospects remain very strong. There are strong arguments that pricing needs to be addressed. I believe these concerns are valid. But some of the scientific approaches are nothing short of remarkable. And valuations have come in significantly. I’m seeing some individual stocks that are making investing in the biotech industry as a whole through ETFs very interesting. Summary Overall, the emphasis Paul Yook expressed in this interview was one of “purity.” While other biotech ETFs diverge out from the biotech industry, investing in big pharma, the BioShares ETFs focus exclusively on biotech. In fact, while BBC currently pales in comparison to most other biotech ETFs in terms of popularity, BioShares holds a second ETF – clearly for the purpose of keeping BBC purely clinical trial based. Hence, the emphasis of “purity” seen for BBC makes this ETF a good investment for an investor who wants biotech and only biotech. That is, if you want explicit exposure to the price gains seen by the creators of up-and-coming drugs, this is your best bet. If you’re looking for something more broad, such as exposure to companies no longer creating drugs but currently in the marketing and sales phase in addition to those up-and-comers, another ETF would be more suitable. Of course, you can gain exposure to both by putting some capital in BBC and some more in BBP or a healthcare ETF. In either case, BBC has a place in the portfolio of investors who believe in the future of biotech breakthroughs.