Tag Archives: nreum

Economic Lethargy Continues To Bankroll The U.S. Stock Bull

Both wage growth and employment have shown lackluster improvement since the end of the Great Recession in mid-2009. Americans do not believe the economy is improving because they are not earning more money or securing higher-paying employment. The weaker the economic picture, the more likely the stock bull will prevail. Over the past century, the U.S. stock market typically turned down prior to the onset of a recession. You did not need to predict economic contraction; rather, you monitored the Dow and the S&P 500 because the benchmarks acted like leading indicators of bad times ahead. (Investors checked the market internals to get a sense for whether or not stocks themselves might “roll over.”) Stocks demonstrated their predictive powers as recently as October of 2007. The bear market eroded 20%-30% of value before the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) even acknowledged the recession’s inception date (12/07) in October of 2008. On the flip side, U.S. equities in today’s world do an atrocious job at recognizing economic sluggishness. The skepticism of chief financial officers (CFOs) at the largest corporations just hit two-year lows. Small business optimism registered its worst reading in 15 months. Meanwhile, you’d have to travel back to November of 2014 to find the sort of pessimism that exists today on the part of the American public. “Gary,” you protest. “People do not always act based upon the way that they feel.” Just the facts, then? The industrial sector – an economic segment that incorporates manufacturing, mining, and utilities – posted its weakest year-over-year (YOY) growth in more than five years. Wholesale sales (YOY) have been in steady decline since 2011, contracting 3.4% in June. Retail sales plummeted in June as well. (No snow. Was it just too hot outside?) And perhaps most importantly, both wage growth and employment (as a function of the population) have shown lackluster improvement since the end of the Great Recession in mid-2009. The take-home is twofold. First, Americans do not believe the economy is improving because they are not earning more money or securing higher-paying employment. For instance, the erosion of roughly one-and-a-half million higher-paying manufacturing jobs has been supplanted by the same number of lower-paying waiter/bartender positions. This dynamic hardly represents economic well-being. Second, the weaker the economic picture, the more likely the stock bull will prevail. In fact, the entire reason that the Federal Reserve needed to enact three rounds of electronic money creation via quantitative easing ($3.75 trillion in “QE”) on top of six-and-a-half years of zero percent overnight lending rates is because the economy has been too weak to tighten borrowing costs. Ironically, Fed chairwoman Yellen maintains that she anticipates hiking rates some time in 2015. Even though annual economic growth throughout the recovery has been stuck near the 2% level? Even as the Fed has downgraded its own expectations for economic expansion for the seventh consecutive year? Even as the the Fed has overestimated the pace of expansion in each of the last seven years? The bond market via the iShares 7-10 Year Treasury Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: IEF ) is not entirely sure if overnight lending rates will be bumped up or not. The fact that the slope of the 50-day moving average has turned lower here in 2015 suggests higher yields in the future, in much the same way that the announcement of QE tapering sent bond yields skyrocketing in 2013. However, IEF’s higher lows over the past five weeks coupled with strong resistance for the 10-year yield near 2.5% may suggest otherwise. Even more intriguing is the likelihood that the pace of any rate hikes may be more important than the timing of the first shot. September? Doubtful. December. Probably. Yet fed funds futures have only priced in a rate of 0.75% by the end of 2016. Only three rate hikes over the next 18 months? Or maybe it will be six at 0.125% so that the pace is even slower than the seemingly preordained quarter-point moves. (You heard the concept of one-eighth of a point here first!) Impressively, stocks continue to benefit from every economic downgrade as well as the lowered expectations for the rate hike timeline. If the European Central Bank (ECB) in Europe can successfully kick Greek debt woes down the pathway – if Chinese authorities can successfully decree that “thou shalt buy-n-hold Shanghai shares” – U.S. stocks may not have much too fear. Indeed, the uptrends for core holdings like the iShares S&P 100 ETF (NYSEARCA: OEF ), the Health Care Select Sect SPDR ETF (NYSEARCA: XLV ) and the Vanguard Information Technology ETF (NYSEARCA: VGT ) remain intact. At the same time, we’re holding a larger-than-usual amount in cash/cash equivalents (15%) in most portfolios. Debt-fueled excess in Greece, Puerto Rico and China gave us a peek of the challenges that central banks around the world will be facing. Global economic deceleration and sky-high U.S. valuations are another. We anticipate an opportunity in the 2nd half of 2015 to buy quality assets at significantly lower prices. Disclosure: Gary Gordon, MS, CFP is the president of Pacific Park Financial, Inc., a Registered Investment Adviser with the SEC. Gary Gordon, Pacific Park Financial, Inc, and/or its clients may hold positions in the ETFs, mutual funds, and/or any investment asset mentioned above. The commentary does not constitute individualized investment advice. The opinions offered herein are not personalized recommendations to buy, sell or hold securities. At times, issuers of exchange-traded products compensate Pacific Park Financial, Inc. or its subsidiaries for advertising at the ETF Expert web site. ETF Expert content is created independently of any advertising relationships.

AMG To Liquidate The AMG FQ Global Alternatives Fund

By DailyAlts Staff On June 26, the AMG Funds I trust filed paperwork with the SEC announcing its plan to liquidate the AMG FQ Global Alternatives Fund (MUTF: MGAAX ), a global tactical allocation fund, on or about July 31. The fund, which launched in 2006, has a one-star rating from Morningstar. Its -5.98% year-to-date returns through June 30 ranked in the bottom 2% of all funds in Morningstar’s Multialternative category. The decision to liquidate was made at a June 25 meeting of the AMG Funds I Board of Trustees. Effective the very next day, the fund stopped accepting most new investments and started selling its portfolio investments. Proceeds from the sales are being held in cash and cash equivalents and will be distributed to shareholders on the liquidation date. The fund sought to outperform the Citigroup 1-month T-bill index, but routinely failed to do so. Since launching on March 30, 2006, the AMG FQ Global Alternatives Fund has dramatically underperformed. In addition to ranking in the bottom 2% of all Multialternative funds in 2015, the fund generated negative annual returns in 2010, 2011, 2013, and 2014; and lagged the category average by 170 basis points in 2012. A $10,000 investment in the AMG FQ Global Alternatives Fund at its inception would have dwindled in value to $8,829.53 as of June 25, 2015, the day the fund’s Board of Trustees decided to liquidate. By comparison, a $10,000 investment in the average fund in Morningstar’s Multialternative category would have grown to $11,408.56 over that same time. As of June 30, the fund’s assets stood at slightly over $15.9 million. Investors with automatic investment plans through IRAs and 401(k)s may still buy shares until the liquidation date. Shareholders who don’t hold their shares in tax-advantaged accounts may have taxable gains or losses upon liquidation. Share this article with a colleague

The Facts On China’s June Correction

Summary China’s onshore markets experienced a pullback in June. The underlying factors that caused the onshore markets to rise are still intact. The government has met the pullback with a powerful intervention. July 16, 2015 – A strong stock market benefits China’s key policy goals: Renminbi, RMB, internationalization, increased domestic consumption, and unlocking shareholder value in state owned enterprises. The markets’ more prominent role in helping China achieve these goals is one explanation for the rise in the onshore markets, which are up 110% over the past year1. Due to this increased emphasis, China met the recent pullback with a powerful intervention. The cause of the pullback and the Chinese government’s actions to contain it can be confusing to investors outside of China. In this piece we provide an up to date overview of the onshore markets and outline why we believe China is still an attractive investment opportunity. Recent Events Stock investing in China is still a new concept and the majority of Chinese households have less money in the markets than those in the United States. Market exposure on a household basis has yet to be institutionalized in China like it is in the U.S., for instance there are no 401k plans in onshore China, thus the market’s drop adversely effects a smaller subset of the population in China than it would in the United States. In the U.S. the savings rate is 5.1%2 with 25% of net worth going into the markets3. In China the savings rate is an impressive 50%4, however, according to China economic research firm PRC Macro, the average household only has 4.4% of their net worth5 invested in the stock market. Based on this comparison, China’s household participation in the stock market compared to its savings rate is relatively low. China’s leadership understands this disparity and has encouraged its people to invest in the capital markets to bring their participation rates up to par with developed nations and to institutionalize the market. This trend is apt to continue in the years to come, which could act as tailwind for investors. Reasons for the June pullback With such a massive influx of investors into the markets as China is currently experiencing, there is bound to be some measure of volatility. The adoption of margin by investors with little stock market experience struck us as imprudent. We believe overextension of margin was the primary cause of the June pullback. Individual retail investors, who represent 85%7 of the market in onshore China, invested heavily in small cap stocks. These individuals bought on margin, leveraging their capital to cover the costs. Before the decrease in Chinese stock prices in June, brokerage margin increased as the onshore market performed well over the last year. In addition, as the markets continued to grow, the use of over the counter, OTC, margin increased. OTC margin is money leant by non-brokerage firms outside of the regulated markets and, in the case of China, allowed leverage upwards of three to five times the money deposited. While it is difficult to gauge exactly how much OTC margin was in the markets at their peak, between the months of March and May of 2015, it is estimated to have been between 1.5 and 2 trillion RMB8. When a large number of Initial Public Offerings,IPOs, and secondary offerings took place in June, Chinese investors started selling their small cap shares in order to invest in the IPOs. As a result, supply overwhelmed demand and triggered a cascade of selling that led to a significant amount of margin calls. A margin call occurs when a broker asks for more capital from an investor to cover a decrease in value of a stock. Halted and Suspended Securities In order to prevent large numbers of investors from being forced to sell due to compounding margin calls, regulators took the unprecedented measure of allowing companies, particularly small cap companies, to voluntarily halt trading in their stocks. The regulators realized that OTC margin, which is outside the scope of their regulatory purview, had the potential to be a systematic threat to the stock market. While stocks halted, regulators could deleverage both brokerage and OTC margin accounts. OTC margin has fallen 66% in the last several weeks alone due to this effort.9 Our partners in onshore China have reported that the OTC margin business has been largely shut down. While many press reports highlighted the number of stocks halted they failed to show the size of these companies. According to Bloomberg, As of July 15’s close in China the number was 10. 75% (2,211 stocks) are trading, which is 88% of the 6.5 trillion total market cap for the 2951 stocks listed in the onshore exchanges. 4% (132) are suspended, representing 4% of market cap. 18% (540) are halted, representing 8% of the market cap 2% (68) are inactive, representing 0% of the market cap; these companies were scheduled to have initial public offerings but had their IPOs suspended due to a moratorium on new IPOs. Our portfolios hold predominantly large cap stocks and some mid-cap stocks. Media reports on halted stocks were correct in the number of stocks halted, however, they failed to note the majority of these halts were small or micro cap stocks. Valuations We previously stated that we believe investors should avoid small cap stocks due to high valuations. Even today the ChiNext stocks, a segment of the Shenzhen Stock Exchange that represents small cap growth companies, are two standard deviations11 above their average price-to-equity,P/E12 of 55 at 86, though down from their June 3 high of 14713. The MSCI China A International Index currently have a forward P/E of 15 while the combined Shanghai and Shenzhen Composite has a P/E of 17 versus its ten-year average of 1915. Where do we go from here? While not of the same magnitude as 2008, there are parallels between China’s recent correction and the U.S. housing crisis. In both cases, standards amongst lenders varied and in many cases decreased over time. Just as no document home mortgages in the U.S. were allowed despite rational thinking, retail investors in onshore China were able to obtain questionable amounts of leverage. Ultimately the U.S. housing market fell and regulators instituted new standards. In China regulators are instituting new policies prohibiting OTC margin. We hope means based testing for the use of margin at brokerage houses is also instituted. Much like how the U.S. housing crisis and subsequent recovery affected certain geographic areas more than other areas, China’s stock market is not apt to see a uniform rise. We believe investors should continue to underweight small cap securities due to high valuations and instead favor large cap stocks, which have returned to their historical average valuations15. We believe China will continue to pursue policies that aid its ascent as a global economic power. China is focused on increasing global competitiveness of State Owned Enterprises, we believe these stocks have potential to continue to perform well. Between China’s continued development policies and MSCI’s forthcoming inclusion of onshore equities, we believe investors should seek greater exposure to onshore China. As China evolves from being a retail market dominated by individual investors to an institutional oriented market like that of the United States we believe its markets may continue to grow and perform well. 1 Data based on MSCI China A International Index as of 7/14/15. 2 Data from World Bank as of 2013. Savings rate: The amount of money, expressed as a percentage or ratio, that one deducts from his/her disposable personal income to set aside as a nest egg or for retirement. 3 U.S. Federal Reserve. “Financial Accounts of the United States: Flow of Funds, Balance Sheets, and Integrated Macroeconomic Accounts” June 11, 2015. 4 Data from World Bank as of 2013. 5 Data from PRC Macro as of 4/28/2015. 6 Margin: The purchase of an asset by paying the margin and borrowing the balance from a bank or broker. Buying on margin refers to the initial or down payment made to the broker for the asset being purchased. The collateral for the funds being borrowed is the marginable securities in the investor’s account. Before buying on margin, an investor needs to open a margin account with the broker. 7 Data from the Shanghai Stock Exchange as of 2012 8 Ai Jingwei. “OTC how to raise capital with the stock market”, Sina Finance, 7/14/2015. 9 Percent change calculated from data reported by Sina Finance (source 7) and People’s Daily, “From The CSRC: The Amount of Off-Balance Sheet Lending is Close to 500 Billion, 15 Billion Forced to Close Shop”, People’s Daily, 6/30/2015. Previous amount of margin was approximately 1.5 trillion RMB between March to May 2015 according to Sina Finance. The current amount of margin is now 0.5 trillion RMB as of 6/30/2015 according to People’s Daily. 10 Data from Bloomberg as of 7/15/2015. 11 Standard Deviation: A measure of the dispersion of a set of data from its mean. The more spread apart the data, the higher the deviation. Standard deviation is calculated as the square root of variance. 12 Price-to-equity: A ratio used to compare a stock’s market value to its book value. It is calculated by dividing the current closing price of the stock by the latest quarter’s book value per share. 13 Data from Bloomberg as of 7/14/2015. 14 Data from Bloomberg as of 7/14/2015. 15 Data from Bloomberg as of 7/14/2015. Disclosure: I am/we are long KBA, KEMP, KWEB, KFYP. (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. Additional disclosure: ©2015 KraneShares Carefully consider the Funds’ investment objectives, risk factors, charges and expenses before investing. This and additional information can be found in the Funds’ prospectus, which may be obtained here: KBA, KFYP, KWEB, KCNY, KEMP Read the prospectus carefully before investing. Investing involves risk, including possible loss of principal. There can be no assurance that a Fund will achieve its stated objectives. The Funds focus their investments primarily with Chinese issuers and issuers with economic ties to China. The Funds are subject to political, social or economic instability within China which may cause decline in value. Fluctuations in currency of foreign countries may have an adverse effect to domestic currency values. Emerging markets involve heightened risk related to the same factors as well as increase volatility and lower trading volume. Current and future holdings are subject to risk. Narrowly focused investments and investments in smaller companies typically exhibit higher volatility. Internet companies are subject to rapid changes in technology, worldwide competition, rapid obsolescence of products and services, loss of patent protections, evolving industry standards and frequent new product productions. Such changes may have an adverse impact on performance. The ability of the KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A ETF to achieve its investment objective is dependent on the continuous availability of A Shares and the ability to obtain, if necessary, additional A Shares quota. If the Fund is unable to obtain sufficient exposure due to the limited availability of A Share quota, the Fund could seek exposure to the component securities of the Underlying Index by investing in depositary receipts. The Fund may, in some cases, also invest in Hong Kong listed versions of the component securities and B Shares issued by the same companies that issue A Shares in the Underlying Index. The Fund may also use derivatives or invest in ETFs that provide comparable exposures. The ability of the KraneShares FTSE Emerging Markets Plus ETF to achieve its investment objective is dependent, in part, on the continuous availability of A Shares through the Fund’s investment in the KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF and that fund’s continued access to the China A Shares market. If such access is lost or becomes inadequate to meet its investment needs, it may have a material adverse effect on the ability of the Fund to achieve its investment objective because shares of the KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF may no longer be available for investment by the Fund, may trade at a premium to NAV, or may no longer be a suitable investment for the Fund. The KraneShares FTSE Emerging Markets Plus ETF and KraneShares Bosera MSCI China A Share ETF may be concentrated in the financial services sector. Those companies may be adversely impacted by many factors, including, government regulations, economic conditions, credit rating downgrades, changes in interest rates, and decreased liquidity in credit markets. This sector has experienced significant losses in the recent past, and the impact of more stringent capital requirements and of recent or future regulation on any individual financial company or on the sector as a whole cannot be predicted. These ETFs may also invest in derivatives. Investments in derivatives, including swap contracts and index futures in particular, may pose risks in addition to those associated with investing directly in securities or other investments, including illiquidity of the derivatives, imperfect correlations with underlying investments, lack of availability and counterparty risk. The use of swap agreements entails certain risks, which may be different from, and possibly greater than, the risks associated with investing directly in the underlying asset. The KraneShares E Fund China Commercial Paper ETF is subject to interest rate risk, which is the chance that bonds will decline in value as interest rates rise. It is also subject to income risk, call risk, credit risk, and Chinese credit rating risks. The components of the securities held by the Fund will be rated by Chinese credit rating agencies, which may use different criteria and methodology than U.S. entities or international credit rating agencies. The Fund may invest in high yield and unrated securities, whose prices are generally more sensitive to adverse economic changes. As such, their prices may be more volatile. The Fund is subject to industry concentration risk and is nondiversified. The KraneShares E Fund China Commercial paper ETF invests in sovereign and quasi-sovereign debt. Investments in sovereign and quasi-sovereign debt securities involve special risks, including the availability of sufficient foreign exchange on the date a payment is due, the relative size of the debt service burden to the economy as a whole, and the government debtor’s policy towards the International Monetary Fund and the political constraints to which a government debtor may be subject. In order to qualify for the favorable tax treatment generally available to regulated investment companies, the Fund must satisfy certain income and asset diversification requirements each year. If the Fund were to fail to qualify as a regulated investment company, it would be taxed in the same manner as an ordinary corporation, and distributions to its shareholders would not be deductible by the Fund in computing its taxable income. Narrowly focused investments typically exhibit higher volatility. Internet companies are subject to rapid changes in technology, worldwide competition, rapid obsolescence of products and services, loss of patent protections, evolving industry standards and frequent new product productions. Such changes may have an adverse impact on performance. The KraneShares ETFs are distributed by SEI Investments Distribution Company, 1 Freedom Valley Drive, Oaks, PA 19456, which is not affiliated with Krane Funds Advisors, LLC, the Investment Adviser for the Fund.