Tag Archives: opinion

5 Taxable Bond Funds To Invest In Despite Record Outflows

Taxable bond funds are debt securities whose interest payments are taxable at the local, state or federal level. Concerns about higher interest rates resulted in a massive sell-off in taxable bond funds in the third quarter of this year. Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen indicated that the lift-off option is very much on the table later this year provided the economy is strong enough to boost employment and inflation touches the desired level. Moreover, worries about global growth, mostly in emerging economies, led to the outflow in taxable bond funds. Nevertheless, these type of funds showcased strength in an otherwise punishing market environment. They posted steady returns amid the stock market sell-off. They are even poised to yield better results banking on stepped-up economic activity, rising business and consumer confidence, improving housing market and continued job creation. Hence, investing in these funds should be a prudent idea. Taxable Bond Funds Suffer Huge Outflows Investors have pulled $36.2 billion out of taxable bond mutual funds in the third quarter of this year, according to the preliminary Lipper data. This represents the biggest outflow from this fund type since the fourth quarter of 2008. In fact, taxable bond mutual funds continued to bleed in the week ended October 7. During the week, investors pulled $2.3 billion out of taxable bond mutual funds, registering its 11th continuous week of net withdrawals. This dismal performance came in after taxable bond mutual funds posted their second-largest weekly outflow on record for the week ending September 30. In the first half of the year, however, taxable bond mutual funds had posted an inflow of more than $23 billion. But if this current outflow continues for the rest of the year, taxable bond mutual funds will mark their first annual net outflow since 2000. According to Jeff Tjornehoj, head of Americas research at Lipper, outflow from this type of funds was broad-based as it was spread across all types of categories and companies. He added: “Investors are getting out of these bond funds because of fear. An unfounded fear, in my opinion, of higher rates and a global recession.” Higher Rates, Global Growth Concerns Concerns about higher interest rates in the near term resulted in outflows from taxable bond mutual funds. Last month, the Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen said that the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) members “expect that the various headwinds to economic growth … will continue to fade, thereby boosting the economy’s underlying strength.” She added: “Most FOMC participants, including myself, currently anticipate that achieving these conditions will likely entail an initial increase in the federal funds rate later this year, followed by a gradual pace of tightening thereafter.” Worries about global economic growth, especially in the emerging economies including China, also led to outflow from bond funds. Markets across the world took a beating in response to the slowdown in China’s economic growth and its surprise move to devalue its currency. Weak Chinese trade data also raised concerns about the country’s growth outlook. While its exports were down 3.7% in September from the same period last year, its imports plunged 20.4% last month from a year earlier. Separately, other emerging markets also face the threat of instability, since their debts are vulnerable to rising interest rates in the US. Overall, the International Monetary Fund downgraded its global growth forecast for this year to 3.1%, which will result in the weakest growth performance since 2009. 5 Taxable Bond Funds to Buy as it Shows Signs of Stability Despite the outflows this year, taxable bond mutual funds are holding up a lot better than the stock markets. Amid volatility in the financial markets, returns from this type of funds remain more or less stable for the year, while the S&P 500 is down 2.7% year to date. Additionally, taxable bond mutual funds have given a steadier average annual return of 4.3% in the last 10 years. Moreover, flows are a result of economic events. A gradual recovery in domestic housing and manufacturing sectors, steady improvement in labor market conditions and lower gasoline prices are expected to boost the US economy in the near term. These factors are likely to have a positive impact on the fund’s performance. Several taxable bond mutual funds are excelling this year. Below we present five such bonds that have given steady returns, possess a relatively low expense ratio and boasts a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #1 (Strong Buy) or Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #2 (Buy). Buffalo High-Yield (MUTF: BUFHX ) invests a major portion of its net assets in higher yielding, higher-risk fixed income securities.BUFHX currently carries a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #1. BUFHX’s year-to-date and 1-year total returns are 3.2% and 4.7%, respectively. Annual expense ratio of 1.02% is lower than the category average of 1.06%. Vanguard Intermediate-Term Investment-Grade Investor (MUTF: VFICX ) invests in a widely diversified group of intermediate-term bonds, most of them issued by corporations with good credit ratings. VFICX currently carries a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #2. VFICX’s year-to-date and 1-year total returns are 2.1% and 2.2%, respectively. Annual expense ratio of 0.20% is lower than the category average of 0.84%. Columbia Strategic Income Fund Class A (MUTF: COSIX ) invests in debt securities issued by the US government, including mortgage-backed securities issued by US government agencies. COSIX currently carries a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #1. COSIX’s year-to-date and 1-year total returns are 1.2% and 1%, respectively. Annual expense ratio of 1.04% is lower than the category average of 1.27%. SEI Daily Income Trust GNMA Fund Class A (MUTF: SEGMX ) invests primarily in mortgage-backed securities issued by GNMA. SEGMX currently carries a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #1. SEGMX’s year-to-date and 1-year total returns are 1.1% and 2.2%, respectively. Annual expense ratio of 0.63% is lower than the category average of 0.91%. Performance Trust Strategic Bond (MUTF: PTIAX ) invests a major portion of its net assets in fixed-income instruments. PTIAX may also invest in derivative instruments. PTIAX currently carries a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #1. PTIAX’s year-to-date and 1-year total returns are 2.3% and 3.1%, respectively. Its annual expense ratio of 0.94% is lower than the category average of 1.03%. Original Post

Dividend ETFs Battle It Out: Get The Right Sectors

Summary There are three big dividend ETFs from the major low cost index providers, Charles Schwab and Vanguard. Two of the three still offer yields over 3% and all three have excellent expense ratios. Investors deciding which one to buy should look at the sector allocation. These ETFs have some major differences in their allocations. Investors seeking high consumer staples exposure should look to SCHD and VIG. Investors wanting more financial exposure should look at VYM. SCHD and VYM both offer around 10% exposure to the energy sector, but VIG has very little allocation there. If you want oil in the portfolio, SCHD and VYM make. Can you smell what the dividend ETF champions are cooking? There are a few big dividend ETFs for broad exposure to companies offering respectable dividend yields. In this article I want to compare a few of them. Let’s meet the big contenders: Name Ticker Yield Expense Ratio Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF SCHD 3.02% 0.07% Vanguard Dividend Appreciation ETF VIG 2.26% 0.10% Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF VYM 3.10% 0.10% For investors that prefer to see those numbers in graphs, I put together a couple quick charts: First Impressions Investors right away may notice that the Vanguard Dividend Appreciation ETF doesn’t have a very high yield compared with the other dividend ETFs. It may be rational for investors looking at it to ask whether it should really be considered a high dividend ETF. While the Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF technically only has 70% of the expense ratio of Vanguard’s options, the difference of .03% is not material. There is no viable way to spin the difference into being material. Assuming your decision isn’t based strictly on yields, the next area to look into is the sector allocations. I grabbed the sector allocations for each ETF: (click to enlarge) (click to enlarge) (click to enlarge) Sector Analysis The first thing that I’m noticing when I look at the sectors is that two of these funds go heavily overweight on consumer staples. When it comes to dividend ETFs, I like going overweight on consumer staples. Consumer Staples The nice thing about the consumer staples sector is that they are defined by the production of products that consumers will need regardless of what else is happening in the economy. Any sector can run into problems, but the kind of macroeconomic issues that can really slam my portfolio value should have a smaller hit on the earnings (and thus dividend potential) of companies in the consumer staples category. Of course, there is no free lunch. In exchange for getting companies that should be more resilient, I have to accept that during a prolonged bull market these companies are likely to rally less than other sectors. If my focus was strictly designing the portfolio for the highest projected total long term return, it would be very reasonable to argue against going heavy on consumer staples. It is up to each investor to determine how they feel about that trade off. If the investor wants more certainty that the underlying companies can sustain their dividends because they intend to use the dividends to cover living expenses, then the importance of those dividends being sustained is more important. Having to sell off part of the portfolio during the kind of recession that sees dividend cuts across the combined portfolio would be pretty painful. Financials Where SCHD and VIG put consumer staples at the top, VYM puts financials at number one. This is very interesting because SCHD placed it at 1.99% and VIG weighted it at 6.37%. Clearly the structure of the portfolio is materially different. There are some very good reasons to like the financial sector for investments. At the top of my list would be the demographic analysis showing that Generation Y is fairly weak at understanding money . If the next generation is less capable of understanding their money, then there may be more opportunities for the financial firms to make money off complicated products that the consumers don’t fully understand. That may sound cynical, but who cares? My goal is to understand where sales and profits will be flowing. If you own shares in the banks, would you encourage the CEO to ensure they have transparent pricing even if cuts earnings and means a smaller dividend? I really doubt shareholders would be thrilled to hear “We cut the dividend to make up for a cash shortfall from lowering prices when the current pricing system was working well.” My concern about aggressive allocations to the financial sector comes from regulation. If we see more regulatory pressure or cases brought against large banks for unethical actions in the pursuit of profit, the development could represent declining margins (from regulatory pressure) or cash expenses to settle cases. Energy SCHD and VYM both put energy over 10% of the portfolio. VIG holds it as just over 1% of the portfolio. There are some fairly different kinds of companies that can be considered “Energy” companies. When energy refers to enormous companies with strong dividends like Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM ), I like that allocation. If it was referring to much more volatile industries like off shore oil drilling, I wouldn’t be a fan. In the case of SCHD, XOM is the heaviest single holding. The same can be said for VYM. While the energy sector has been punished with oil prices at very low levels and no clear path higher, I see those issues as being priced into the shares. As long as the issues are already priced in, I want some exposure that would benefit from higher gas prices. Lower fuel prices mean more money for consumers to spend on other goods and services. If the low fuel price trend ends, I’d like to at least have the upside from earnings going up for a big dividend payer in the portfolio. What do You Think? Which dividend ETF makes the most sense for you? Do you want to overweight consumer staples for more safety in a downturn or would you rather have more upside in a prolonged bull market? Do you want to own the oil companies, or do you foresee gas as being in a long term downtrend that makes the business model much weaker?

Should We Fear Debt?

Summary Avoiding an indebted investment is short-sighted, because data shows that debt levels and returns aren’t always negatively correlated. By tilting to the segments that are more sensitive to movements in credit spreads, investors must be willing to accept the greater influence of the equity markets. Look at the data before you believe a strategist who encourages you to avoid indebted companies. By Chris Philips Late last year, Josh Barrickman, head of bond indexing at Vanguard, blogged about the smart beta movement in fixed income. Josh challenged the notion that a company or country could flood the market with debt, which would invariably harm market cap-focused investors. You’ve probably heard it before: “Why would anyone want to invest in the most indebted companies or countries? It’s just throwing good money after bad.” While this premise may seem logical and intuitive on the surface, as with many things we see or hear, a bit of logic and perspective can diffuse superficial arguments. First, some perspective from a unique source. I’ve been catching up on some reading, and one piece in particular stuck with me – an article referencing a story about astronomer Carl Sagan. When presented with “evidence” of alien abductions in the form of an individual who was convinced beyond doubt of having been abducted, the astronomer responded: ” To be taken seriously, you need physical evidence… But there’s no [evidence]. All there are, are stories .” So, should we believe the stories and fear debt? The answer is, it depends. But as a general practice, avoiding an investment simply because of its level of debt is short-sighted. For example, see Figure 1, which shows the relationship between a country’s debt-to-GDP level and the returns of that country’s bond market. Included is a mixture of developed and emerging market countries, with a requirement that each country report a debt-to-GDP ratio and 10 years of bond returns. I’ve highlighted two “groups” of countries – those that have seen low returns over the last 10 years and those with higher returns. Notably, there’s no apparent relationship within each group or across groups. Higher debt levels didn’t always lead to lower returns, and low debt levels didn’t always lead to higher returns. So, rather than take intuition at face value, as investors we must ask ourselves: “What causes one country with a low debt-to-GDP ratio to return 1.5% per year, another to return 4% per year, and yet another to return 7.5% per year?” Clearly, market participants are taking many more factors into consideration than just the perception that debt is scary and should therefore be avoided. Figure 1. Another consideration involves the actual portfolio ramifications of focusing on debt levels as a screening metric. The easiest strategy with which to evaluate the impact of debt involves weighting an index according to a country’s GDP instead of to its bond market. And if we compare the Barclays Global Aggregate Bond Index to the GDP-weighted Global Aggregate Bond Index, we see an immediate attraction: Duration is reduced marginally from 6.47 to 6.33, but the yield increases by close to 20% – from 1.72% to 2.06% – by moving to the GDP-weighted index.¹ Less risk and greater return? Free lunch alert! However, if we closely examine Figure 2, we can clearly see what’s going on. By moving away from market cap, you underweight the U.S. and Japan and overweight various emerging market segments. After all, the U.S. and Japan both fit the profile of the most indebted countries. One implication is that while both indexes are considered investment-grade, the GDP-weighted version has a noticeable tilt towards lower-quality bonds. Figure 2. Why is this important? Because as much as we’d like them, free lunches do not exist. Case in point: From January 1, 2008 through February 28, 2009 (the last notable equity bear market), the Aaa segment of the Global Aggregate Bond Index returned 0.2%. The Aa segment returned 5.8%, the A segment returned -17.1% and the Baa segment returned -14.0%.¹ In other words, by tilting to the segments that may be more sensitive to movements in the credit spreads, investors must be willing to accept the greater influence of the equity markets, particularly during really bad times. What’s more – and what’s important – is that a primary motivation for holding fixed income (at least in our opinion) as a consistent and meaningful diversifier for equity market risk may be marginalized (see: Reducing bonds? Proceed with caution ). My advice? Next time you hear a strategist, sales executive, or portfolio manager encouraging you to avoid indebted countries or companies, ask yourself whether you should buy into the hype. Indeed, as Sagan is famous for stating: “Precisely because of human fallibility, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” So, let’s all take a deep breath and repeat: “I’m not afraid of debt, I’m not afraid of debt.” Source: Barclays Global Aggregate Bond Index. Notes: All investing is subject to risk, including the possible loss of the money you invest. Bond funds are subject to interest rate risk, which is the chance bond prices overall will decline because of rising interest rates, and credit risk, which is the chance a bond issuer will fail to pay interest and principal in a timely manner or that negative perceptions of the issuer’s ability to make such payments will cause the price of that bond to decline. Securities of companies based in emerging markets are subject to national and regional political and economic risks and to the risk of currency fluctuations. These risks are especially high in emerging markets. Duration is a measure of the sensitivity of the price (the value of principal) of a fixed-income investment to a change in interest rates. Duration is expressed as a number of years.