Tag Archives: most-popular

Rough Days Ahead For The Platinum ETF

Thanks to a stronger dollar led by expectations of higher interest rates, many of the commodities have been reeling under pressure this year. The broad-based DB Commodity Index Tracking ETF (NYSEARCA: DBC ) is down 4.5% this year, indicating that the pain has been felt across the broad. In fact, the precious metals space has been one of the worst performers with ETFS Physical Platinum Shares (NYSEARCA: PPLT ) down 10.8% since the start of the year. Despite a long-term deficit, which indicates a bullish trend, the sentiment for the precious metal has been weak. Last week, platinum prices were trading near the $1,060/oz mark – falling to their lowest levels since 2009 – hit by strong supply. Supply Glut Unlike last year, wherein labor unrest crippled the output of South Africa – the world’s biggest platinum producer – production this year has returned to levels ahead of the five-month strike in 2014. A sharp depreciation of the South African rand – which has fallen to a 14-year low against the dollar in early June this year – has been the primary factor for the flood in supplies. A weaker rand lowers costs for South Africa’s miners, offsetting falling platinum prices and providing them with an incentive to keep producing. Johnson Matthey plc ( OTCPK:JMPLY ), one of the biggest makers of platinum-based chemicals, estimates that platinum supplies from South Africa are expected to jump by nearly 20% this year, the largest year-over-year gain since 1993, as per an article by the Wall Street Journal . Other Factors Apart from the supply glut, investors’ sale of shares of the physically backed platinum ETF is also pushing supplies higher and dragging prices down. Slowing growth in China – the world’s top consumer of platinum for jewelry – has also been a cause of concern. Chinese platinum imports fell 11% year over year for the first four months of the year, per TD Securities. Adding to the concerns, European car sales rose at the slowest pace in six months in May. Platinum is a key component of catalytic converters, so when car demand falls, platinum demand tends to fall as well. Thus, given robust supply and dwindling demand, platinum might have a rocky road ahead. This is also expected to dampen the performance of PPLT. PPLT in Focus Launched in January 2010, this ETF tracks the performance of platinum’s price and is quite a popular fund in the precious metals space managing assets worth $550.8 million. The product invests in bars of platinum and holds them in a secure European facility on behalf of the custodian, JPMorgan Chase Bank. The product charges a decent 60 basis points a year and has an average volume of more than 32k shares traded a day. PPLT is down 10.8% in the year-to-date frame. There are also a few ETNs in the platinum space including the iPath DJ UBS Platinum TR Sub Index ETN (NYSEARCA: PGM ) and the UBS ETRACS CMCI Long Platinum TR ETN (NYSEARCA: PTM ) . Both of these suffer from lower assets and low volume levels, though they have seen similarly bad performances in the year-to-date frame. Bottom Line A strong dollar and a weaker rand have been the primary factors boosting South Africa’s platinum supply. Diverging monetary policies across the globe is to be blamed for the raging currency war. Apart from this, slowdown in China and falling car demand in Europe are also supporting lower platinum prices. However, European car registrations, a proxy for sales, have increased 6.9% to 1.17 million units in April – the best sales volume for April since 2009. Nonetheless, it remains to be seen whether the momentum can sustain or not, boosting the demand for platinum, or will platinum prices continue their downtrend led by a supply glut. Original Post

Clough Global Equity: Undervalued Closed End Fund With Increasing Activist Involvement

Summary Trading at ~10% discount to NAV. Discount likely to compress with activist HF pressing for tender offer and/or ETF conversion/liquidation. Downside limited due to expiration of standstill agreement if discount rises above 12% of NAV. Background on Closed End Funds For those new to the space, a closed-end fund is a publicly traded investment company that raises a fixed amount of capital, and is then structured, listed and traded like a stock on a stock exchange. Whereas conventional mutual funds and ETFs frequently redeem / issue new shares to ensure that the price per share remains in line with the net asset value of the underlying holdings in the funds, this is not the case for CEFs. Rather the share price of CEFs is driven by the market forces of supply and demand, and can at times trade at either large discounts or premiums to NAV of the funds’ actual holdings. The Clough Global Equity Fund (NYSEMKT: GLQ ) is an example of one fund that is trading at a meaningful discount to NAV, mainly due to investors’ disappointment with the manager’s history of underperformance. As they have done with many similar CEFs, activist hedge fund Bulldog Investors has taken a major position in GLQ and initiated steps to cause to discount to decline. This presents an attractive opportunity for investors to ride Bulldog’s coattails and generate alpha from the declining discount. Overview of Clough Global Equity Fund GLQ was formed in 2005, and its mandate is to invest at least 80% of its portfolio in equity and equity-related securities in U.S. and non-U.S. markets, and the remainder in fixed income securities, including both corporate and sovereign debt, in both U.S. and non-U.S. markets. Currently, the portfolio is diversified across more than 200 positions and predominately invested in US equities, as summarized below. The fund uses a moderate amount of leverage, with the leverage ratio standing at ~26% as of 5/31. (click to enlarge) Source: Clough Global Equity Fund Monthly Fact Sheet Despite the relatively traditional composition of the portfolio, performance has been lackluster. As shown below, an investment in GLQ has returned > 2% less per year (based on market price) than the S&P 500, with the level of underperformance accelerating recently. Source: Clough Global Equity Fund Monthly Fact Sheet In the first quarters following the fund’s IPO in 2005, GLQ traded at a slight premium to NAV as investors were satisfied with the manager. However, unsurprisingly given the fund’s subsequent performance, it has traded at a persistent discount to NAV in recent years. Currently, the discount stands at approximately 10%. (click to enlarge) Source: CEF Connect Bulldog’s Involvement Even prior to recent pressure from Bulldog, GLQ began some small preemptive steps to reduce the discount. In particular, they increased the level of distributions twice over the past couple of years, and recently adopted an open-market repurchase program pursuant to which the Fund is authorized to repurchase up to 5% of its outstanding common shares between April 20, 2015 and October 31, 2015. After accumulating a position of ~1.28 million shares of GLQ (i.e., approximately 7.15% of total shares outstanding), Bulldog Investors has become more active in recent months in seeking larger actions to reduce the discount. In particular, they requested that the fund include the following proposal in this year’s proxy material: Board of Trustees [should] authorize a self-tender offer for all outstanding common shares of the Fund at or close to net asset value. If more than 50% of the Fund’s outstanding common shares are submitted for tender, the Board is requested to cancel the tender offer and take those steps that the Board is required to take to cause the Fund to be liquidated or converted to an exchange traded fund or an open-end mutual fund.” Source: Company 14A SEC Filing GLQ subsequently entered into a standstill agreement with Bulldog, which is outlined in Bulldog’s recent 13D filing . Under this agreement, the fund indicated that it would include the proposal for a shareholder vote at the fund’s annual meeting scheduled for July 28th. In order to pass, this proposal requires the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the Common Shares entitled to vote and represented at the meeting. If the shareholder proposal passes the Fund will conduct a tender offer based on the terms described in the shareholder proposal. Further, if the Fund commences this tender offer and more than 50% of the Fund’s shares are tendered, then, consistent with the terms of the shareholder proposal, the Fund would terminate the tender offer and the Board, would consider whether to approve and to submit to shareholders a proposal to liquidate the Fund or convert the Fund into an open-end fund or ETF. In exchange for including the proposal, Bulldog agreed to a number of conditions, including to generally refrain from activist activities through the 2016 annual shareholder meeting if less than 40% of the shares present and entitled to vote at the Meeting vote for the proposal, so long as the Fund’s discount to NAV does not exceed 12% for 20 consecutive business days. Potential Outcomes Institutions own a large portion (~41%) of the shares outstanding, and in all likelihood will represent a much larger portion of shares present at the upcoming shareholder meeting. Of the top holders (shown below), most appear to fall into two camps: 1) sophisticated CEF investors like SIT and Rivernorth that have recently been adding to their positions (likely in large part motivated by potential for reduction in the fund’s discount), and 2) other longer term holders like Advisors Asset Management that have sought to meaningfully reduce their stakes. A large portion of investors in both groups would likely favor a major tender offer that would enable them to exit some of their holdings at close to NAV. Therefore, I believe Bulldog’s proposal has a good chance of passing. Source: Nasdaq However, even if the proposal does not pass, downside appears to be limited due to the fact that the standstill agreement will expire if the discount to NAV rises above 12% (i.e., ~2% higher than the current level), as previously discussed. GLQ management will be highly incentivized to keep the discount from exceeding this level, for instance by repurchasing shares under their buyback program. If this is not effective and the discount does rise above 12%, Bulldog will be able to reinitiate further activist actions to seek to narrow the discount. With around 10% of potential alpha in an upside scenario and -2% in a downside scenario, I believe GLQ now represents an attractive risk/reward. Other Risks/Considerations Given that GLQ’s portfolio is comprised mostly of US equities, it will of course carry exposure to the general market. It is also worth noting that in the past, Bulldog has used some of its positions in CEFs to press for the transfer of investment advisory control from the funds’ managers to itself, enabling it to collect management fees without eliminating the discount. I believe an important protection against this in the case of GLQ is the fact that there are a number of other large institutional shareholders, including some others that are willing to engage in activism. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, but may initiate a long position in GLQ over 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.

Should You Make Chemical Enhancements To Your Portfolio?

By Todd Rosenbluth Most diversified index-based materials products have significant exposure to the chemicals industry, though the weightings can be different. For example, chemicals comprised approximately 70% of the S&P 500 Materials Index as of late June. Meanwhile, the S&P 500 Equal Weight Materials index had a 54% weighting in chemicals, with more exposure in containers & packaging companies. As such we think investors need to understand what drives the industry. S&P Capital IQ thinks cost saving efforts can spur the chemicals industry to higher earnings per share (EPS) growth levels in 2016, after expected growth of less than 10% in 2015. We see industry revenues growing slightly and at a slower pace over the next few years. Our profit and revenue growth forecasts are tied to the likelihood of a steadily improving U.S. macroeconomic environment, mostly offset by a stronger U.S. dollar, significantly lower oil prices, and slowing economic growth in China. The chemicals industry is comprised of five sub-industries: specialty chemicals, diversified chemicals, fertilizer & agricultural chemicals, industrial gases, and commodity chemicals. According to S&P Capital IQ equity analyst Christopher Muir, revenues of specialty chemicals companies are mostly influenced by volumes, while commodity chemicals companies face significant threats to revenue per share from changes in commodity prices for their products or raw materials. For fertilizer & agricultural chemicals companies, prices of the products will likely affect fertilizer revenue per share, while agricultural chemicals, including specialty seeds, are more-specialized products, which are driven by volumes. Industrial gas companies are likely to see a mix of volumes and prices driving revenues. In the fourth quarter of 2014 and first quarter of 2015, a rise in the value of the dollar versus other currencies had a negative effect on revenue per share, but a fall in the dollar index would be a positive in the second half of 2015 and in 2016. Specialty chemicals companies and divisions spend money and time developing new products. In most cases, Muir noted these new products are highly specialized to suit the end user, and as a result are often sold at much higher margins than their less specialized counterparts are, helping operating margin. S&P Capital IQ recently published an Industry Survey that reviews the drivers of the chemicals industry. This report along with S&P Capital IQ stock and ETF reports tied to materials sector can be found on MarketScope Advisor. Disclosure: © S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC 2015. Indexology® is a trademark of S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC (SPDJI). S&P® is a trademark of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC and Dow Jones® is a trademark of Dow Jones Trademark Holdings LLC, and those marks have been licensed to S&P DJI. This material is reproduced with the prior written consent of S&P DJI. For more information on S&P DJI and to see our full disclaimer, visit www.spdji.com/terms-of-use .