Tag Archives: portfolio

Is It Time To Short Small-Cap Stocks?

By DailyAlts Staff Size matters to factor-based investors, as small-cap stocks have historically outperformed their large-cap counterparts. But throughout the equity market’s history, there have been periods of dramatic small-cap underperformance, and David Schulz, president of Convergence Investment Partners, thinks we may be headed into such a period. He and his team at Convergence are rare among small-cap managers in employing an active shortin g strategy as both a source of alpha and a way to reduce risk. The Convergence Opportunities Fund (MUTF: CIPOX ) reflects the views of Mr. Schulz and his team. The fund, which debuted in November 2013 and ranked in the top 9% of funds in its category in its first calendar year, lost 5.4% in the first nine months of 2015, but still ranked in the top quartile of its peers. Going forward, the fund should outperform if small caps underperform, providing a unique way for investors to diversify their portfolio risks. Why are Mr. Schulz and Convergence bearish on small caps? The firm sent out an alert late last month citing a variety of reasons pertaining to valuation: Roughly 27% of stocks in the small-cap Russell 2000 index have negative P/E ratios (i.e., they’re unprofitable), while this is true of only 8% of large- and mid-caps in the Russell 1000; About 9% of Russell 2000 stocks have a P/E ratio of 50 or higher, while less than 6% of Russell 1000 stocks have such high earnings multiples; and In total, 36% of stocks in the Russell 2000 have P/E ratios that are either negative or over 50 – and 10 stocks in the index have P/Es that are over 1000! Furthermore, increased volatility in the equity markets has been bearish for small caps, since conditions have led investors to “sharpen their focus on valuations,” in Convergence’s words. In the brutal month of August, the 25 small-cap stocks with the highest P/E ratios returned -8.83%, while the 25 stocks with the lowest P/Es returned -0.28%. Since there are many more small caps with high P/Es than with low valuations, this trend is bearish for small caps in general, but Convergence’s Opportunities Fund applies a long/short approach to capture the upside exposure to the best-valued small-cap stocks. The firm says so-called “hope stocks” are on its list of shorts – these are companies with “weak balance sheets; low or decelerating cash flow, earnings, and sales; and high expectations.” Convergence believes an active short portfolio can complement an active long portfolio, especially during particularly tumultuous times. The short portfolio can “cushion the fall” when the market is under pressure and “add materially to the overall return of the portfolio over time.” Ultimately, stocks are differentiated by their fundamentals, and with interest rates expected to rise soon, the most fundamentally sound companies should outperform those with weaker balance sheets and decelerating earnings. The Convergence Opportunities Fund seeks to capitalize by applying a flexible long/short approach to U.S. small-caps. Share this article with a colleague

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?

Model Portfolio Update: Beating The Market By 14% Year To Date

My defensive value model portfolio is ahead of the market by just under 14% so far this year. The reasons are: 1) a sensible strategy and 2) some luck. To be honest, the FTSE 100 and FTSE All-Share are not providing much in the way of competition at the moment, because both of them have fallen in value this year. However, I can’t be blamed for that; all I can do is focus on the model portfolio’s goals, which are: High yield – A higher dividend yield than the FTSE All-Share at all times High growth – Higher total return that the FTSE All-Share over any 5-year period Low risk – Lower risk than the FTSE All-Share over any 5-year period The chart below shows the performance from inception of the model portfolio and its FTSE All-Share benchmark, the Aberdeen UK Tracker Trust . Both the model portfolio and the All-Share tracker are virtual portfolios which started with £50,000 in March 2011. They both reinvest all dividends and take account of broker fees and bid/ask spreads. I have basically all of my family’s long-term savings invested in the same stocks as the model portfolio. Ahead on a total return basis Clearly, the All-Share portfolio has not done well lately. At the start of October, it was down 3.7% relative to its value in January. In contrast, the model portfolio gained 10% in the same period, producing a relative outperformance of 13.7% year to date. The gap between the two portfolios is now £13,370, which is 27% of their original value. In annualised terms, the All-Share portfolio has generated a return of 5.9% per year (including dividends), while the model portfolio has returned 10.3%. One of my goals for the model portfolio is to beat the market’s total return by 3% per year, and that goal is still firmly on track. Ahead on dividend yield and (probably) dividend growth Another of the model portfolio’s goals is to have a high dividend yield at all times. This goal has always been met since 2011, and the portfolio’s current yield is 4.2%, which compares well with the All-Share tracker’s yield of 3.7%. Dividend growth has been relatively good too. The All-Share tracker has paid out the full 2015 dividend already (of £2,384), while the model portfolio’s cumulative dividend is ahead so far (at £2,650) and still has three months of dividends to go. I fully expect its total dividend to far surpass the All-Share’s by the end of 2015. Success with Cranswick ends a bad run In terms of individual investments, 2015 has been a bit of an up and down year. Although I realise that a sensible investor must expect some individual investments to perform badly, I was somewhat peeved after a string of underperforming holdings during the first half of the year. As you may know, I sell one holding every other month and replace it the following month. The idea is to repeatedly replace the “weakest” holding in the portfolio with a stock that has a better combination of defensiveness and/or value. Following that approach, I sold ICAP ( OTCPK:IAPLY ) in February for an annualised return of 15%, which, while not spectacular, was more than satisfactory. But after that, things took a turn for the worse. In April, I sold Balfour Beatty ( OTC:BAFBF , OTCQX:BAFYY ) – after three years of profit warnings – for an annualised return of 2.6%, which is obviously below par. After that came the sale of Serco ( OTCPK:SECCY ) in June, which was my worst investment to date and returned a loss of 50%. Next up was August and the sale of RSA ( OTCPK:RSNAY ), which returned a just-about-acceptable 6% per year. Even that result was largely down to luck and a well-timed exit during a brief share price peak, thanks to the now withdrawn Zurich takeover bid. However, such doom and gloom ended with October’s sale of Cranswick ( OTC:CRWCY ), which you may have read about last week. It produced a record result for the model portfolio, returning 135% in just under three years, for an annual return of 35.3%. And so it continues to be true that some you win, and some you lose. The lesson here is that it is a portfolio’s overall result that matters, and not the performance of any one investment. A couple of winners drive performance In addition to Cranswick, there have been a couple of really standout holdings this year whose performance has been, quite frankly, bordering on the ridiculous. The first outstanding performer is JD Sport , which is up by about 90% from the start of the year. The second is Telecom Plus ( OTC:TLPLY ) (trading as The Utility Warehouse ), which is up by about 50% from where I bought it in May. After these impressive results, the share prices of both companies have reached levels that I would no longer consider attractive. In fact, I am more likely to trim their positions back a bit if their share prices keep going up as they have done recently. Wide diversification helps reduce risk The model portfolio is a defensive value portfolio, so risk reduction is as important to me as performance. My main weapon in the war on risk is diversification, diversification and yet more diversification. I mention diversification three times not just for effect (although it’s partly that), but also because there are three dimensions to the portfolio’s diversification strategy: Company diversification – The portfolio holds 30 companies, with no more than 6% in any one holding. This protects it from problems in any one company. Industry diversification – The portfolio holds no more than three companies in any one FTSE Sector. This protects it from problems in any one industry. Geographic diversification – The portfolio generates no more than 50% of its revenues from the UK. This helps to protect it against problems in the UK economy. One additional line of defence against risk is the portfolio’s focus on defensive sectors . My rule of thumb (which it currently meets) is that the portfolio should always be at least 50% invested in defensive sectors. This focus on defensive sectors helps me to reduce the impact of economic and industry cycles on the portfolio’s capital value and dividend output. Expectations for the future Currently, the FTSE 100 (and therefore, the FTSE All-Share) is attractively valued, relative to both its own historical norms and the current valuations of international indices such as the S&P 500. The fact that the FTSE 100 has recently had a dividend yield of over 4% is a clear indication of this, although the CAPE ratio is my preferred measure of value. With these low valuations, I think above average returns are likely from here on out, which means more than 7% a year or thereabouts. Of course, that expectation is a long-term expectation, measured over the next five or ten years rather than the next five or ten months. The model portfolio’s goal over that period will be the same as it always is: To beat whatever income and growth the market produces, with less risk.