Tag Archives: most-popular

A 10-Bagger Emerges

All of my investments fall into two* broad categories: Category 1: Dividend and Dividend Growth Unexciting and established companies that pay out consistent, rising dividends that provide passive income and bring me closer to my financial independence. Companies like: HCP, Inc. (NYSE: HCP ), Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ ), Textainer (NYSE: TGH ), Philip Morris (NYSE: PM ), National Oilwell Varco (NYSE: NOV ), or PepsiCo (NYSE: PEP ). Category 2: Game Changers Exciting, emerging companies that I invest in to be part of a greater story, trend, and idea and to make huge amounts of capital gains over the course of years. Companies like: Netflix (NASDAQ: NFLX ), SolarCity (NASDAQ: SCTY ), LinkedIn (NYSE: LNKD ), or Google (NASDAQ: GOOG ) (NASDAQ: GOOGL ). *: Some companies fall into both categories; a sweet spot of having high growth prospects while still paying a dividend. Companies like: Visa (NYSE: V ), Costco (NASDAQ: COST ), Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL ), Starbucks (NASDAQ: SBUX ), or Texas Roadhouse (NASDAQ: TXRH ). All of the companies I’m invested in can be found at my portfolio . The rest of this post is about Category 2. Status Of Our Current Ten-Bagger Candidates Three months back, I wrote this post identifying three stocks (Netflix, Bank of Internet (NASDAQ: BOFI ), and Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA )) that will be ten-baggers over the next five to ten years. Since that time, each of those companies has gone gangbusters, trouncing the S&P 500 (prices through 8/5/2015): Weeehoo! I’m lucky that I’m able to show strong gains right out of the gate. Normally, I spend years defending my picks until I’m finally vindicated. That could still be the case for these companies, but the instant returns give me some street cred. People still scoff at my rather simple investing strategy , which would make sense if there was a correlation between intelligence and investment returns, but as we’ve seen , there is not. There seems to be a mindset that if you look at something in a “common sense” way, rather than get into this sort of craziness , then you obviously aren’t doing enough research. I disagree. I like to think of my investing approach as the Occam’s Razor of investment strategies, in that the most obvious idea is most likely the right one. In just the last three and a half months, a lot has gone right for these three 10-baggers, which have averaged 45% returns, crushing the S&P’s 1.6% return over the same period. Netflix: Netflix crushed subscriber estimates when it reported Q2 two weeks ago, adding 3.3M subs against estimates of 2.5M. Most astounding is that the domestic segment was about half responsible for that sound beating. So much for saturation… as Netflix added twice as many domestic subscribers this quarter versus the same quarter a year ago. The 7-for-1 stock split has helped as well, allowing retail investors to build a position in the previously pricey name, and even allowing yours truly to write a covered call on about half of my shares after the quarter was announced. I wrote a Sep 18, ’15 $125 call for $2.54 right after earnings; that call is trading at $1.87 now, so I’m up about $70. It’s small change, but I don’t see a lot more near-term catalysts that aren’t already baked in, so I’ll collect that whole premium if Netflix rises less than a few percent in the next month and a half. I’ll take that. I’m leery to cap my returns on Netflix with a long-dated option, but the premiums were still compelling at such high and near strikes that I couldn’t resist a little easy money. Things couldn’t be more exciting for Netflix right now. Japan, Spain, Portugal, and Italy will have Netflix streaming in the next three months, then we’re talking dozens more countries next year. The number of levers Netflix can pull are astounding, 4k streaming upgrades, mobile-only packages in emerging markets, merchandising, international syndication, and marketing of their original content. Oh, and that original content, it’s not just the dual world-beaters of House of Cards and Orange is the New Black anymore. Daredevil is being called the best superhero series of all time (I agree), and if you haven’t seen The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, then you are missing out on the funniest thing since Parks and Rec. Just own this company. Stop overthinking it. Bank of Internet: Business as usual at our favorite branchless bank. They reported last week that the loan portfolio grew 40% yoy, and the industry-best loan loss provision continues to fall (just 0.62% now) – seriously, I’ll argue that these guys have the best underwriting of anyone (that isn’t out breaking thumbs) in history. The deposit base grew 46% yoy, but the best part is that cheap deposits (checking and savings) now account for 82% of deposits (from 74% last year) – that is awesome. That just keeps allowing BOFI to have a crazy NIM (net interest margin) of 3.82%. For a company that just grew full year EPS by 40%, a 22 P/E is just criminal, not to mention the fact that BOFI is still a tiny minnow ($1.9B market cap) in the ocean of financial industry. So, we have a small bank with revolutionary business model and absurd efficiency. Check. Best in sector loan losses and interest spreads. Check. Growing at an astounding rate and growing in the right areas. Check. You need to own this company. It will be a household name in ten years. Tesla: My man-crush Elon Musk is still cruising along at the world’s coolest technology/car company. In the last few months, Tesla has reaffirmed the Model X delivery schedule , with X deliveries coming in late September/early October. Musk called demand for Tesla’s new home battery storage unit, Powerwall, “crazy off the hook,” and said that they are basically sold out for 12 months and will have no way of meeting demand without the gigafactory. Speaking of the gigafactory, it will be producing batteries by the middle of next year. I want you to just imagine, for a second, what Tesla might look like in 2025. We could be talking about a company that is in nearly every garage in America – not the car, but the Powerwall. The economics of Powerwall are just too compelling. You charge your Powerwall at night with cheap energy, then during the day you’re powering your household/business using that cheap energy storage. Right now, the unit costs $4k including installation, but battery costs trend downward over time, and are expected to fall 7.5% every year for the next decade. In ten years, it will likely be $1.5-2k or less. Suddenly, it’s a no brainer. Maybe you’re saying, “Yah, but anyone can build a big battery.” Really? No, they can’t. After the gigafactory is built, the Tesla-Panasonic partnership will have over half the world’s lithium-ion battery production capacity. Of course, that’s just Tesla’s little Powerwall side hustle. Tesla will have the Model S, X, and III. Maybe a new Tesla Roadster . Then, leveraging this technology, why not a pickup truck? Vans? Name an automobile type, and it may be a Tesla opportunity. I don’t know everything, but I can say with a high degree of certainty that Tesla will keep innovating, and keep offering the best cars on the planet . If Tesla is still around in ten years, it can only be as a huge company – there is no middle ground. I think it will be around. A Fourth 10-Bagger Opportunity You didn’t think today’s post was to just take a victory lap, right? Heck no! Today, I am unveiling my fourth ten-bagger opportunity. Part of being taken seriously is to limit the number of recommendations you make. There’s no shortage of ideas out there, so it’s important to have each recommendation mean a lot. Once you start making ten or twenty recommendations a day, well… then you start sounding like Jim Cramer. But, by making only one big recommendation every few months, and just pounding the table on that same stock for years, you establish credibility through consistency. So, I don’t come to this pick lightly. In fact, I wrote about 15-inches of webspace on a totally different company a few weeks ago, thinking it was my next ten-bagger. But, after much consternation, I decided to withhold it because I just didn’t believe I had a high enough conviction. I have a very big internal hurdle I have to clear before I call something a ten-bagger. With that, let’s go. And to reveal, let me give a brief history… Three years ago, I came across this company called Mako Surgical. It was a robotic medical device maker that specialized in a robot called Rio, which did partial knee replacements and resurfacing. The device was approved by the FDA, and the Rio was expanding applications to hip replacements, as well. This was amazing. Now, rather than a surgeon goin’ in with a nice long incision and swapping a ball bearing in for your bad knee, the Rio made minimally invasive knee resurfacing possible. Cheaper cost. Shorter recovery times. Few complications or infections. Lots of stair-stumblin’ baby boomers hittin’ old age. A slam dunk. I already had a two-bagger and was pumping this company to all of my friends (I still have text messages to prove it). My belief was that I was looking at a powerhouse company like Intuitive Surgical (NASDAQ: ISRG ), but much earlier in the growth curve. Then, in September of 2013, it all came to a halt. Stryker (NYSE: SYK ), the major medical device company, announced they were acquiring Mako at a big premium. I couldn’t believe it! Yes, I was making a nice overnight profit, but I knew I would be losing out on years of much bigger gains. Since that point, I’ve been on the lookout for a similar opportunity. It’s been elusive, but I think I’ve found it. Enter, Zeltiq Aesthetics (NASDAQ: ZLTQ ). What is it? Zeltiq is a medical device technology company that is the exclusive licensee for the CoolSculpting System. Around 375,000 people in the U.S. each year get liposuction. This highly invasive procedure involves opening up a gap between the skin and muscle tissue and vacuuming out fat cells. Bruising is heavy, infection is common, it is quite expensive at roughly ~$5k per procedure (varies wildly based on extent, geography, body area, etc.), and requires a serious time commitment and work loss. CoolSculpting is a lighter, non-invasive take on liposuction. In fact, the technical term for a CoolSculpting procedure is cryolipolysis. If you break down that term: Cryo: Freezing, Lipo: Fat, and Lysis: Breaking down cell structure. The CoolSculpting procedure, in general, is as follows: A suctioning device is affixed to an area of a body that has the undesired fat tissue. Not “obese”-level fat tissue, but just that stubborn fat that hangs around areas like the lower abdomen, inner thighs, obliques, underarms, or back. Call it “pinchable fat.” While simultaneously suctioning, the device cools the area down to about 5 degrees Celsius (40 degrees Fahrenheit). The device stays on for about 60 minutes, wherein patients experience no pain, but some slight discomfort. The fat cells crystallize, with the onset of apoptosis. Over the course of the next 2-3 days, the fat cells collapse and die. Over the next 60-90 days, the amount of time needed to see complete results, macrophages begin to digest the dead fat cells and the body naturally processes them out. This is all FDA approved, and Zeltiq has recently been approved for several additional applications, including a lower temperature PRO device that speeds up the procedure, as well as a device currently awaiting FDA approval, the CoolMini, for removal of under-chin fat. Zeltiq recently was approved for use of the CoolSmooth, which is a non-suctioning device that works for “non-pinchable” fat. The procedure works using the same principle (although taking a bit longer), and treats areas like the outer thighs and stomach. A Preferred Alternative In a society where we’re looking for a fast-food, Persian Bazaar solution to all of our problems, this type of procedure hits a sweet spot. I see this as an opportunity to be at the early stages of the next Botox or Lasik. First, the cost. A 60-minute single-site session will run a patient around $500 (lower abdominal more like $800). Depending on the amount of fat to be removed, several sessions may be necessary. Zeltiq receives $125 per procedure ($275 for lower abdominal CoolMax procedures). Most patients receive ~4 procedures in total. This is a vanity treatment, but one that most Americans can choose to afford. Second, the non-invasiveness. It is a much lower mental hurdle for a person to overcome to receive an outpatient, 60-minute treatment that costs about the same as a good teeth-whitening. This procedure isn’t meant for very obese people, but for those who work out and just have a few troublesome areas (just about everyone), then this is a very viable option. Third, the positive side effects. It would do an investor well to review real patient stories and pictures both at the Proven Results section of the company website, as well as the CoolSculpting section of the independent reviews site RealSelf. However, you’ll note that the procedure has positive effects for skin tightening, stretch marks, or cellulite. While these are not the intended need, this is obviously a positive secondary outcome. The Market Here’s where we start talking about the 10-bagger opportunity. Zeltiq is growing rapidly, with revenues just being guided higher at a 40% increase year over year. In a razor and blades model, the company makes its money through the sale of machines and consumables. The company sold 387 machines (selling price when undiscounted is $109k) in the most recent quarter (86% YoY growth). The machine has a 55% gross margin. Consumables (applicators, gels, liners, and the $125 or $275 a pop procedure cards) were up 50% YoY with an 85% gross margin. Consumables now make up about half of all revenues, and that share is increasing (long-term target share is 70% of revenues are consumables). Perhaps most telling is that about 26% of all system sales were in international markets, but more importantly, 36% of all system sales went to existing accounts, or accounts that already had at least one system. How telling is that? Over a third of your system sales are to aesthetic clinics that already have at least one other > $100k machine on the premises. That’s some true demand driven sales! The market opportunity is immense. The company currently has about 3,200 accounts, which addresses about 10% of the U.S. market of aesthetic clinics and about 6% of the international market. The U.S. market and the international market are estimated to be roughly the same size. In terms of procedures, Zeltiq believes they are at about 2% penetration in the U.S., and 1% worldwide penetration. And as far as sustainability, I see underlying macro-trends like the widening belt of America as a rather strong wave to ride. The Opportunity Zeltiq currently trades at a P/E of 288 (EPS of $0.12). Nearly everyone would look at that P/E and just run for the hills. Keep in mind, though, that the 288 P/E is the last 12 months of earnings. Over the next three years, at consensus EPS estimates, the P/E will fall to 108, 48, and 26, respectively. Suddenly, a company that is more than doubling EPS YoY looks remarkably cheap. Especially considering the number of levers it can pull to drive earnings in a sustainable way. Zeltiq is targeting one new innovation per year, be it an applicator, device, or site. Thus far, they’ve shown remarkable success in navigating FDA waters, and there’s a high likelihood that CoolMini (under-chin fat) will be approved this fall. Additionally, Zeltiq is selling into their channels in a great, partnering way. They’ve opened two CoolSculpting Universities (east and west coast), with plans for three more. Classes fill up “months” in advance, and clinics that attend see an increase of 60% in system utilization. For a company so young and early in its growth curve, you can play with numbers in a lot of ways to come up with a path to ten bags. However, if we go with management’s target of 20% revenue CAGR for the next 5 years (a revenue growth rate that they’ve absolutely obliterated for the last few years), then we’re at $550M in revenue in 2020. At a 22% net margin (same as ISRG, but consistent with targets of 27% EBITDA margin and 5% target for Dep/Amort) then we have net profits in 2020 of $120M for a company growing at 20% YoY. Throw a 25 P/E on there and you have a $3B company, which would be a 130% increase from today, and still growing at 20%. I see that figure as base case. There is tremendous potential to expand this system for uses beyond fat removal (see investor presentation, below). Additionally, the global potential (100x in procedures) is off the charts, and that is against a backdrop of increasing emerging market incomes and tastes. It’s all really, really exciting to me. In Conclusion I am long the stock as of a few days ago. And because you can never trust anyone on the internet, I would strongly suggest reading, bare minimum, the following: I’m really excited to talk about this company alongside proven successes Netflix, Tesla, and Bank of Internet. I very honestly think that we’re looking at a technology that will gain widespread acceptance and use among not only our own population, but the global population over the years to come. With 2015 being Zeltiq’s first year of projected profitability, I think it’s an absolutely phenomenal time to throw just a little bit of money at this one while the elevator is still near the ground floor. Lastly, I don’t work for Zeltiq, there are no affiliate links or anything in this post, I literally make zero profit or money from anyone taking this advice. I understand that there’s some inherent skepticism in reading stuff on the internet, and that’s why I’m recommending doing your own further reading. There are some obvious risks, here, including loss of capital. So, if you do start a position, make it small. If Zeltiq fails, a little is all you’ll lose. If Zeltiq succeeds, a little is all you’ll need.

Best S&P 500 Utility Stocks According To A Winning Ranking System: A Look At Exelon

Summary Ranking the top twenty S&P 500 utility stocks according to a winning ranking system. Explanation and back-testing of the “ValueSheet” ranking system. Description and a buy recommendation for the first-ranked stock of the system: Exelon Corporation (EXC). S&P 500 utility stocks have given, on average, a similar return to that of the S&P 500 index over the last year. The average return of the 29 S&P 500 utility stocks that are included in the S&P 500 index (included dividends) in the last 52 weeks has been 10.51%, while the S&P 500 index has returned 9.77%. The table below shows all S&P 500 utility companies, ranked according to their 52 weeks return. A Ranking system sorts stocks from best to worst based on a set of weighted factors. Portfolio123 has a ranking system which allows the user to create complex formulas according to many different criteria. They also have highly useful several groups of pre-built ranking systems, I used one of them the “ValueSheet” in this article. The “ValueSheet” ranking system is quite complex, and it is taking into account many factors like; valuation ratios, growth rates, profitability ratios, financial strength, asset utilization, technical rank, industry rank, and industry leadership, as shown in Portfolio123’s chart below. In order to find out how such a ranking formula would have performed during the last 16 years, I ran a back-test, which is available by the Portfolio123’s screener. For the back-test, I took all the 6,651 stocks in the Portfolio123’s database. The back-test results are shown in the chart below. For the back-test, I divided the 6,651 companies into twenty groups according to their ranking. The chart clearly shows that the average annual return has a very significant positive correlation to the “ValueSheet” rank. The highest ranked group with the ranking score of 95-100, which is shown by the light blue column in the chart, has given by far the best return, an average annual return of about 18%, while the average annual return of the S&P 500 index during the same period was about 3.5% (the red column at the left part of the chart). Also, the second and the third group (scored: 90-95 and 85-90) have given superior returns. This brings me to the conclusion that the ranking system is very useful. After running the “ValueSheet” ranking system on all S&P 500 utility stocks on August 09, I discovered the twenty best stocks, which are shown in the table below. In this article, I will focus on the first-ranked stock; Exelon Corporation (NYSE: EXC ). (click to enlarge) On July 29, Exelon reported its second quarter 2015 results and narrowed its full-year operating earnings guidance to $2.35 to $2.55 per share. Exelon achieved earnings above its guidance range in the quarter, led by a strong financial performance at Constellation. The company beat EPS expectations in the last quarter by $0.05 (9.3%). The major drivers for the beat were reduced outages at ExGen’s nuclear plants and lower uncollectibles at Baltimore Gas & Electric. Revenue grew 5.1% to $6.51 billion in the period. Exelon showed earnings per share surprise in its last two-quarters after missing estimates in the previous quarter, as shown in the table below. Source: Yahoo Finance Despite low power prices and challenging market conditions in the wholesale power markets, I see healthy growth prospects for the company. The proposed all-cash acquisition, pending approvals, of Pepco (NYSE: POM ), will help to boost Exelon’s earnings growth rate. The merger continues to be conditioned upon approval by the Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia. Exelon expects the merger to be completed in the third quarter of 2015. On the regulated side, the forthcoming Pepco merger should bring opportunities for investment and operational improvement, as well as an additional regulated earnings stream to support the dividend. Also, the coming industry coal plant retirements will lower future reserve margins and would lead to higher electricity prices. In another development, the company plans, in September, to decide what nuclear plant will be retired due to uneconomic operational conditions. Exelon continues to evaluate the viability of three of its nuclear plants in Illinois (Byron, Quad Cities, and Clinton) given that the Illinois legislative session ended without a resolution on the low carbon portfolio. Valuation EXC’s stock has underperformed the market in the last few years. The stock is down 12.5% year-to-date while the S&P 500 index has increased 0.9%, and the Nasdaq Composite Index has gained 6.5%. Moreover, since the beginning of 2013, EXC’s stock has gained only 9.1% while the S&P 500 index has increased 45.7%, and the Nasdaq Composite Index has risen 67%. However, In my opinion, EXC’s stock is a clear value with the stock having faded more than its fundamentals and key catalysts. (click to enlarge) Chart: TradeStation Group, Inc. Exelon’s valuation metrics are excellent, the trailing P/E is very low at 11.97, the forward P/E is low at 13.40, and its price-to-sales ratio is also very low at 0.95. Furthermore, its Enterprise Value/EBITDA ratio is very low at 6.76, the lowest among all S&P 500 utility stocks. Source: Portfolio123 Exelon is paying a generous dividend. The forward annual dividend yield is pretty high at 3.82% and the payout ratio is at 45.8%. However, the annual rate of dividend growth over the past five years was negative at -10%. Summary Exelon delivered better than expected second quarter results and narrowed its full-year operating earnings guidance to $2.35 to $2.55 per share. Exelon achieved earnings above its guidance range in the quarter, led by a strong financial performance at Constellation. Despite low power prices and challenging market conditions in the wholesale power markets, I see healthy growth prospects for the company. The proposed all-cash acquisition, pending approvals, of Pepco, will help to boost Exelon’s earnings growth rate. Exelon has compelling valuation; its EV/EBITDA ratio of 6.76 is the lowest among all S&P 500 utility stocks. In my view, the recent retreat in its price offers an excellent opportunity to buy the stock at a cheap price. 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.

The Low Volatility Anomaly: Mid Caps

The Low Volatility Anomaly describes portfolios of lower volatility securities that have produced higher risk-adjusted returns than higher volatility securities historically. This article provides additional evidence for Low Volatility strategies by showing the factor’s success in mid-cap stocks. Provides historical comparison of returns between low volatility mid cap stocks versus broad mid cap indices and the benchmark large cap index. Thus far in this series, our most oft used description of the Low Volatility Anomaly in equity markets has been depicted through the use of a factor tilt on a large cap index. In the introductory article to this series on Low Volatility Investing, I plotted the cumulative total return profile (including reinvested dividends) of the S&P 500 (NYSEARCA: SPY ), the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index (NYSEARCA: SPLV ), and the S&P 500 High Beta Index (NYSEARCA: SPHB ) over the past twenty-five years. In an article last week , I showed that the Low Volatility Anomaly extends to small cap stocks as well as the S&P Smallcap 600 Low Volatility Index has also outperformed the broader S&P Smallcap 600 over the last twenty years, producing annual total returns of nearly 14% per annum. The volatility-tilted indices for both the small and large cap indices are comprised of the twenty percent of index constituents with the lowest (highest) volatility within the S&P 500 based on daily price variability over the trailing one year, rebalanced quarterly, and weighted by inverse (direct) volatility. The low volatility tilt of both the small and large cap indices produced both higher absolute returns and much lower variability of returns than the broader market gauges. This article will answer the question of whether such a factor tilt delivers alpha in the space in-between – the mid-cap stock market. Fortunately for our examination, Standard & Poor’s has also developed the S&P MidCap 400 Low Volatility Index . Similar to the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index, this benchmark tracks the twenty percent of the S&P MidCap 400 (eighty stocks) with the lowest realized volatility over the past year, weighted by an inverse of that volatility, and then rebalanced quarterly. While the index was launched in September 2012, Standard & Poor’s has back-tested data for over twenty years. Below is a graph of the cumulative total return of the S&P MidCap 400 Low Volatility Index, the S&P MidCap 400 Index, and the S&P 500. (click to enlarge) Source: Standard and Poor’s; Bloomberg As you can see above, the S&P MidCap 400 Index (white line; replicated through the ETF MDY ) readily bests the S&P 500 (yellow line). This outperformance is consistent with my article on 5 Ways to Beat the Market that demonstrated the structural alpha available through the size factor, which has been well documented in academic research (F ama & French, 1992 ). Some readers have also contended that the outperformance from Equal Weighting, which was also one of my “5 Ways ” is attributable to the size factor as well and more reminiscent of a mid-cap strategy given the lower average capitalization of equally weighting versus traditional capitalization weighting, but I contend that the contrarian re-balancing also contributes to the alpha-generative nature of that strategy. Whatever the source of the structural alpha, mid-caps have outperformed large-caps over long-time intervals. Low Volatility mid-caps have outperformed the broad mid-cap index on a risk-adjusted basis, but not on an absolute basis like the Small and Large Cap strategies. In tabular form, one can readily see that each of the small cap, mid cap, and large cap Low Volatility indices produce higher risk-adjusted returns with lower variability of returns than the broader market gauges from which they are constructed. The lower downside in the market selloff in 2008 greatly contributes to the lower variability of the Low Volatility indices. (click to enlarge) The PowerShares S&P MidCap Low Volatility Portfolio (NYSEARCA: XMLV ) seeks to replicate the performance of the S&P MidCap 400 Low Volatility Index with a 0.25% expense ratio. Like many of the Low Volatility ETFs, XMLV is a post-crisis innovation with a track record dating only back to February 2013. The ETF has only $100M of AUM, and thirty-day average volume of only 14,600 shares, similar AUM to the SmallCap Low Volatility ETF (NYSEARCA: XSLV ), but about 2/3 of the trading volume. Again similar to the Small Cap Low Volatility Index, I would be remiss if I did not mention that financials currently account for nearly half of the fund weighting (REITs 27.3%, Insurance 16.6%, Banks 3.8%). As I covered in a recent comparison between the PowerShares S&P Low Volatility ETF versus the iShares MSCI USA Minimum Volatility ETF (NYSEARCA: USMV ), industry concentrations in the S&P indices are uncapped, unlike the MSCI versions, and this lack of constraints has historically led to risk-adjusted outperformance and more variable industry concentrations over time. A reader of my article on Small Cap Low Volatility contended that they disfavored these funds because of the potential higher sensitivity to higher rates given the financial bent. Rates are moderately higher in 2015, and XMLV has delivered market-beating returns. I would point out that if higher rates lead to higher return volatility, then these stocks will be attributed lower weights or excluded from the fund at the quarterly rebalance date. As described in now fourteen recent articles on the Low Volatility Anomaly, I am a believer in the relative risk-adjusted outperformance of low volatility strategies. While Mid-Cap Low Volatility did not deliver the absolute outperformance versus the Mid Cap Index over the historical sample period, it still strongly outpeformed on a risk-adjusted basis. Versus the S&P 500, which many use as their benchmark, MidCap Low Volatility still delivered 3% per annum of outperformance with less than three-quarters of the return volatility. I am also a believer in the long-run outperformance available through the size factor that favors smaller and mid-capitalization stocks. Resultantly, I am evaluating an entry into a modest position to XMLV to provide some additional diversification to the Low Volatility portion of my long-term portfolio and will monitor the efficacy of this ETF vehicle as it matures. Disclaimer: My articles may contain statements and projections that are forward-looking in nature, and therefore inherently subject to numerous risks, uncertainties and assumptions. While my articles focus on generating long-term risk-adjusted returns, investment decisions necessarily involve the risk of loss of principal. Individual investor circumstances vary significantly, and information gleaned from my articles should be applied to your own unique investment situation, objectives, risk tolerance, and investment horizon Disclosure: I am/we are long SPY, SPLV, XSLV. (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.