Tag Archives: mutual funds

Are Alternative Mutual Funds Eating From The CTA Pie?

It seems like everywhere you look, you see a chart showing the upward AUM growth of liquid mutual funds, as well as the number of new funds. These charts left us with one main lingering question that we think is on the mind of many in the Managed Futures space. How big is the Liquid Mutual fund compared to the rest of the industry? And is that growth in addition to, or at the expense of, the rest of the industry? We explored this question in the latest article featured in CTA Intelligence , seen below. Are alt mutuals eating from the CTA pie? There’s no doubt that the packaging of managed futures into liquid mutual funds (’40 Acts’ as they’re called in the biz) has changed the managed futures space forever. It just depends which side of this particular aisle you’re on whether you view that as a good or bad change. On one hand, you can argue the $11bn AQR which has been brought into the space is good for the industry (in a sort of rising tide lifts all boats argument). On the other hand, there were the snickers and jeers in the audience at last year’s managed futures Pinnacle Awards when Cliff Asness won a lifetime achievement award. Many said he should have won the lifetime damage award for undercutting everyone on fees and essentially switching $11bn in money from 2/20 to 125bps). So which is it? Are managed futures mutual funds good for the industry as a whole? This may all seem like semantics, but it is surely important for those playing their particular brand of managed futures to investors. If mutuals are grabbing assets at the expense of others, then that’s surely not helpful to the grand majority of fund managers out there, not to mention the exchanges, brokerage firms, and the rest of the industry which need new money brought into the space to grow, not just the same money switching to mutual funds. Which brings us to the numbers. We gathered the data on the assets in managed futures mutual funds to trace the growth of the category since 2013. Then, we looked to compare that growth to the growth of managed futures as a whole from the BarclayHedge database. Now, a few details to consider: One, we made one big assumption, that all of the managed futures mutual fund AuM is included in the BarclayHedge CTA database, to make the math as simple as subtracting the ‘liquid AuM’ from the BarclayHedge AuM to arrive at the ‘non-liquid AuM’. Second, we subtracted Bridgewater’s AuM from the BarclayHedge numbers ( we don’t consider them to be managed futures ). And finally, we’re talking growth of assets here and sort of commingling that with inflows and outflows, as that term is known in the mutual fund world. Our methodology is considering the change in assets, so the growth or decline is both inflows/outflows and performance. As for what we would anticipate to see if there’s a rising tide effect, we would expect both curves to be up varying amounts. If there is ‘liquid’ growth at the expense of private funds, we would expect sort of mirror image curves, with private on the bottom and liquid on top. So what did we find – more of the mirrored look, albeit with private funds more mirrored than just mutual funds would explain – meaning they didn’t lose a dollar in assets for every one mutual funds brought in – they appear to have lost more. Going with BarclayHedge numbers, private funds lost around $40bn in assets through the middle of 2014 before pulling in around $20bn to end the period down roughly $19bn. Meanwhile, their liquid alt counterparts showed a slow but consistent growth of around $13bn over two years (amazingly, AQR was about $7.5bn of that amount according to Brightscope ). All in all, the managed futures mutual funds in the Morningstar managed futures mutual fund category outgrew private funds by $33bn. Click to enlarge This is interesting but it doesn’t completely answer the question we are after. Growth in assets are a good indicator of which vehicle investors are adding or subtracting from, but it doesn’t quite tell us how much of the industry is controlled by each type. Here’s a look at the percentage of managed futures assets controlled by mutual funds compared to the amount that is not. In 2013, our estimation of the total assets in managed futures through both private and liquid funds was about $206bn. The Morningstar category had around $9.6bn of that number, meaning 4.7% of the managed futures pie was controlled by mutual funds (cue pie chart): Click to enlarge Click to enlarge Fast forward to 2015, and we estimate managed futures overall actually went down in AuM by about $8.1bn to $198bn, while mutual funds grew by $13.9bn over the same time to a new high of $23.7bn, meaning managed futures mutual funds now represent 12% of the industry. The last two years have seen mutual funds share of the managed futures pie jump from 4.6% to 12%. That’s sort of impressive, but not as big of a jump as we might have thought before crunching the numbers. Perhaps, it’s important to apply context to what was going on during this growth. Managed futures was experiencing its worst drawdown in a generation throughout 2013 and the first half of 2014, then following it up by posting its best performance since 2008 in the second half of 2014.Grabbing a bigger slice of the pie with what’s generally considered ‘hotter’ money investing in mutual funds is certainly a feat. There’s no denying mutual funds are making up more of the managed futures space, but private funds still control There’s no denying mutual funds are making up more of the managed futures space, but private funds still control nine tenths of AuM – that’s a big number. The question is, what does the future trajectory look like? You would think mutual funds would continue making hay and taking a bigger and bigger slice of the pie, and indeed more and more managers we talk to are asking when, not if, they should consider switching to a mutual fund format. But then there are reports that institutional investors are looking to increase their exposure to private funds in 2016. And last but not least, it’s not a wide open road ahead for liquid alts products with new SEC derivatives rules on the horizon , potentially meaning you would need millions of dollars to trade a single Euro Dollar future, effectively putting the managed futures mutual fund complex out of business. Stay tuned…this is one battle definitely worth watching

Q2 2016 Sector Ratings For ETFs And Mutual Funds

At the beginning of the second quarter of 2016, no sectors earn an Attractive-or-better rating. Our sector ratings are based on the aggregation of our fund ratings for every ETF and mutual fund in each sector. See last quarter’s Sector Ratings here . Investors looking for sector funds that hold quality stocks should focus on the Consumer Staples and Information Technology sectors. These sectors, despite not earning an Attractive rating overall, contain the highest percentage of assets allocated to Attractive-or-better rated funds. Figures 4 through 7 provide more details. The primary driver behind an Attractive fund rating is good portfolio management , or good stock picking, with low total annual costs . Attractive-or-better ratings do not always correlate with Attractive-or-better total annual costs. This fact underscores that (1) cheap funds can dupe investors and (2) investors should invest only in funds with good stocks and low fees. See Figures 4 through 13 for a detailed breakdown of ratings distributions by sector. Figure 1: Ratings For All Sectors Click to enlarge Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings To earn an Attractive-or-better Predictive Rating, an ETF or mutual fund must have high-quality holdings and low costs. Only the top 30% of all ETFs and mutual funds earn our Attractive or better ratings. U.S. Global Jets ETF (NYSEARCA: JETS ) is the top rated Industrials fund. It gets our Very Attractive rating by allocating over 66% of its value to Attractive-or-better-rated stocks. Southwest Airlines (NYSE: LUV ) is one of our favorite stocks held by JETS and earns a Very Attractive rating. Over the past decade, Southwest Airlines has grown after-tax profit ( NOPAT ) by 17% compounded annually. During this time period, the company’s return on invested capital ( ROIC ) improved from 6% in 2005 to a top quintile 17% over the last twelve months. However, LUV is only up 6% over the past year, and shares have become undervalued. At its current price of $44/share, LUV has a price to economic book value ( PEBV ) ratio of 0.9. This ratio means that the market expects Southwest’s NOPAT to permanently decline by 10%. If Southwest can grow NOPAT by just 5% compounded annually for the next decade , the stock is worth $65/share today – a 48% upside. Saratoga Advantage Energy & Basic Materials Portfolio (MUTF: SBMBX ) is the worst Energy fund. It gets our Very Dangerous rating by allocating over 55% of its value to Dangerous-or-worse-rated stocks. Making matters worse, its total annual costs are a whopping 6.26%. ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP ) is one of our least favorite stocks held by SBMBX and earns a Dangerous rating. ConocoPhillips’ business has been deteriorating for quite some time. Over the past decade, the company’s NOPAT has declined from $15.8 billion to -$586 million. Over the same time frame, its ROIC fell from 18% in 2005 to a bottom quintile 0% in 2015. Unfortunately for investors, the price decline over the past two years has not been enough and COP remains overvalued. To justify its current price of $39/share, COP must grow revenue by 20% compounded annually for the next 16 years . Keep in mind that COP’s revenues have declined each of the last four years and it’s easy to see just how optimistic the expectations baked into COP remain. Figure 2 shows the distribution of our Predictive Ratings for all sector ETFs and mutual funds. Figure 2: Distribution of ETFs & Mutual Funds (Assets and Count) by Predictive Rating Click to enlarge Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Figure 3 offers additional details on the quality of the sector funds. Note that the average total annual cost of Very Dangerous funds is over seven times that of Very Attractive funds. Figure 3: Predictive Rating Distribution Stats Click to enlarge * Avg TAC = Weighted Average Total Annual Costs Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings This table shows that only the best of the best funds get our Very Attractive Rating: they must hold good stocks AND have low costs. Investors deserve to have the best of both and we are here to give it to them. Ratings by Sector Figure 4 presents a mapping of Very Attractive funds by sector. The chart shows the number of Very Attractive funds in each sector and the percentage of assets in each sector allocated to funds that are rated Very Attractive. Figure 4: Very Attractive ETFs & Mutual Funds by Sector Click to enlarge Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Figure 5 presents the data charted in Figure 4. Figure 5: Very Attractive ETFs & Mutual Funds by Sector Click to enlarge Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Figure 6 presents a mapping of Attractive funds by sector. The chart shows the number of Attractive funds in each sector and the percentage of assets allocated to Attractive-rated funds in each sector. Figure 6: Attractive ETFs & Mutual Funds by Sector Click to enlarge Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Figure 7 presents the data charted in Figure 6. Figure 7: Attractive ETFs & Mutual Funds by Sector Click to enlarge Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Figure 8 presents a mapping of Neutral funds by sector. The chart shows the number of Neutral funds in each sector and the percentage of assets allocated to Neutral-rated funds in each sector. Figure 8: Neutral ETFs & Mutual Funds by Sector Click to enlarge Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Figure 9 presents the data charted in Figure 8. Figure 9: Neutral ETFs & Mutual Funds by Sector Click to enlarge Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Figure 10 presents a mapping of Dangerous funds by fund sector. The chart shows the number of Dangerous funds in each sector and the percentage of assets allocated to Dangerous-rated funds in each sector. The landscape of sector ETFs and mutual funds is littered with Dangerous funds. Investors in Utilities funds have put over 65% of their assets in Dangerous-rated funds. Figure 10: Dangerous ETFs & Mutual Funds by Sector Click to enlarge Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Figure 11 presents the data charted in Figure 10. Figure 11: Dangerous ETFs & Mutual Funds by Sector Click to enlarge Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Figure 12 presents a mapping of Very Dangerous funds by fund sector. The chart shows the number of Very Dangerous funds in each sector and the percentage of assets in each sector allocated to funds that are rated Very Dangerous. Figure 12: Very Dangerous ETFs & Mutual Funds by Sector Click to enlarge Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Figure 13 presents the data charted in Figure 12. Figure 13: Very Dangerous ETFs & Mutual Funds by Sector Click to enlarge Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings D isclosure: David Trainer and Kyle Guske II receive no compensation to write about any specific stock, sector or theme. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Smart Beta ETFs Not So Smart?

Smart beta ETFs that were on fire for quite some time now appear to be losing some momentum. Smart beta strategy helps to exploit market anomalies by adding extra selection criteria to the market cap or rules-based indices. These include among other strategies value – stocks trading cheap but performing better than stocks trading at a higher value, momentum – based on ongoing trend, dividend – stocks paying high dividend perform better in the long run and volatility – stable stocks perform better any day (read: How to Play the Choppy Market with Cheap Smart Beta ETFs ). In fact, the popularity of smart beta has soared to such a point, where a Create-Research survey has found that smart beta ETFs make up for around 18% of the U.S. ETF market. The U.S. markets are experiencing extreme volatility and the factors responsible for it are global growth concerns, escalating geopolitical tensions, a surge in the U.S. dollar and uncertainty over the timing of the next interest rate hike. Against this backdrop, investors look for smart stock-selection strategies to alleviate market risks. But nothing works forever, not even smart strategies. This is as true for smart beta ETFs as for market anomalies. Per a report by Research Affiliates’ analysts, one of the primary reasons why smart beta strategies have been performing well is because of their growing popularity, which led to higher valuations rather than structural alpha. The latter is the quality of the strategy and its potential to beat the benchmark on a sustainable and repeatable basis. This does not mean that one should reject smart beta ETFs altogether. If any inefficiency is spotted in the market, smart beta ETFs enable investors to exploit it at a cheap cost. However, it should be noted that not all smart beta ETFs have fulfilled their promise of delivering market-beating returns (read: Smart Beta ETFs That Stood Out Amid Market Volatility ). Below we have highlighted a few ‘Smart Beta’ options that underperformed the broader U.S. market ETF SPDR S&P 500 ETF (NYSEARCA: SPY ), which has gained about 1.6% so far this year (as of March 30, 2016) First Trust Dorsey Wright Focus 5 ETF (NASDAQ: FV ) This ETF tracks the Dorsey Wright Focus Five Index, which provides targeted exposure to the five First Trust sector and industry-based ETFs that Dorsey, Wright & Associates (DWA) believes have the highest potential to outperform other ETFs in the selection universe. It is a popular ETF with AUM of $4.6 billion and trades in solid volumes of around 2.2 million shares a day on average. The fund charges a higher 89 bps in fees. The ETF has lost 8.2% in the year-to-date period (as of March 30). Guggenheim S&P SmallCap 600 Pure Growth ETF (NYSEARCA: RZG ) This fund tracks the S&P SmallCap 600 Pure Growth Index. The product has a wide exposure across 146 stocks with each holding less than 2% share while healthcare and financials are the top two sectors accounting for over 20% share each. The ETF has AUM of $192 million but trades in light volume of about 28,000 shares a day on average. It charges 35 bps in annual fees and fell 2.4% in the year-to-date period. SPDR Russell 1000 Momentum Focus ETF (NYSEARCA: ONEO ) The fund tracks the Russell 1000 Momentum Focused Factor Index and holds a broad basket of 903 securities that are widely diversified with none holding more than 0.82% of assets. ONEO has accumulated $340.2 million in its asset base. It charges a lower fee of 20 bps per year and trades in solid volume of around 137,000 shares. The ETF fell 0.5% in the year-to-date period (read: 5 Very Successful ETF Launches of 2015 ). Original Post