Tag Archives: portfolio

Building A Hedged Portfolio Around A Position In Novo Nordisk

Summary One of the more appealing stocks to consider as part of a concentrated portfolio is Novo Nordisk, the leading diabetes care and biopharmaceutical company. We review some reasons why Novo Nordisk is appealing, and discuss how an investor can include it in a concentrated portfolio, while limiting his risk and maximizing expected return. We recap the method, show how you can build a concentrated hedged portfolio yourself, and present a sample hedged portfolio built around Novo Nordisk. The sample portfolio is designed for someone with $80,000 to invest, who wants to limit his risk to a drawdown of no more than 18%. The sample portfolio has a negative hedging cost. The Number One Stock In the World Part of the attraction of Seeking Alpha articles is often the comments they generate. In the latest installment of his series on his top investments (“The #1 Stock In the World, Part II”), hedge fund manager and Seeking Alpha contributor Chris DeMuth, Jr. named Ocean Shore (OCSH) as his current favorite. In a comment on that article, his fellow Seeking Alpha contributor Harm Elderman offered an intriguing alternative selection for that title, Novo Nordisk (NYSE: NVO ), and added: “It’s been my largest share of my portfolio for over 8 years and every year it’s been an incredible cash cow (as it has been all the years before and will be in the future). Seriously, take a look. This firm has bent some stock market rules (in my view) over the last 25 years in regards of risk/reward profile.” The Appeal of NVO Although DeMuth aims to “sift the world”, it’s understandable that he can’t cover every promising stock. At the same time, a closer look at NVO illuminates the appeal it has had for Elderman and many other investors. (click to enlarge) Riding a global mega trend Although Novo Nordisk is active in other areas such as growth hormone treatments, it remains a leading manufacturer of diabetes medications, such as the NovoLog FlexPen prefilled insulin syringe, pictured above. Diabetes is a global epidemic: according to the World Health Organizaton, as of 2014, 9% of the world’s adult population was estimated to suffer from the disease. The International Diabetes Foundation’s Diabetes Atlas estimates the total number of diabetes cases globally is 387 million. By way of comparison, the WHO estimates there are 37 million patients in the world living with HIV. The scale of the diabetes epidemic, and Novo Nordisk’s 90-year history in diabetes treatment, provides some context to the remarkable long-term chart of the company’s shares: (click to enlarge) Not only does the scale of diabetes dwarf that of HIV and AIDS (fewer than half of those infected with HIV currently suffer from AIDS), but the epidemic is expected to grow considerably over the next two decades. The Diabetes Atlas estimates 592 million people will be living with the disease in 2035. Selected Fundamentals Novo Nordisk shares aren’t cheap on an absolute basis – according to Fidelity’s data, the current PEG ratio for the stock (using 5-year earnings growth projections) is 1.97, while a PEG ratio of 2 or greater is often considered to be high. However, the average PEG ratio for the pharmaceutical industry is 4.13. Particularly striking, though, are the company’s returns on sales, equity, assets, and investment, as shown below (image via Fidelity). (click to enlarge) Equity Summary Score Fidelity aggregates opinions on stocks from multiple research shops and weights each opinion by the historical accuracy of the researchers. It then consolidates that data into an “equity summary score”, on a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the most bullish. As the image below shows, the current equity summary score for NVO is very bullish. Building a Hedged Portfolio Around an NVO Position Given the appeal of NVO, why consider hedging it? For two reasons: Any stock may be subject to unpredictable, idiosyncratic risk. For a recent example , consider the emissions scandal at Volkswagen ( OTCQX:VLKAY ). All stocks are subject to market risk: in the event of a major market correction, all stocks are likely to plummet. You could simply buy and hedge NVO, and we’ll show a sample hedge for it below, but the benefits of the hedged portfolio method are that it can lower your overall hedging cost and let you maximize your expected return. So, we’ll use NVO as starting point and show how you can build a hedged portfolio around it for an investor who is unwilling to risk a drawdown of more than 18%, and has $80,000 that he wants to invest. First, though, let’s address the issue of risk tolerance, and how it affects potential return. Risk Tolerance and Potential Return All else equal, with a hedged portfolio, the greater an investor’s risk tolerance, the greater the maximum drawdown he is willing to risk (his “threshold”, in our terminology) and the higher his potential return will be. So, we should expect that an investor who is willing to risk a 28% decline will have a chance at higher potential returns than one who is only willing to risk an 8% drawdown. In our example, we’ll be splitting the difference and using an 18% threshold. Constructing A Hedged Portfolio We’ll outline the process here briefly, and then explain how you can implement it yourself. Finally, we’ll present an example of a hedged portfolio that was constructed this way with an automated tool. The process, in broad strokes, is this: Find securities with promising potential returns (we define potential return as a high-end, bullish estimate of how the security will perform). Find securities that are relatively inexpensive to hedge. Buy a handful of securities that score well on the first two criteria; in other words, buy a handful of securities with high potential returns net of their hedging costs (or, ones with high net potential returns). Hedge them. The potential benefits of this approach are twofold: If you are successful at the first step (finding securities with high potential returns), and you hold a concentrated portfolio of them, your portfolios should generate decent returns over time. If you are hedged, and your return estimates are completely wrong, on occasion – or the market moves against you – your downside will be strictly limited. How to Implement This Approach Finding promising stocks In this case, we’ve got one promising stock already, NVO. To find others, you can use Seeking Alpha Pro , among other sources. To quantify potential returns for these stocks, you can use analysts’ consensus price targets for them, to calculate potential returns in percentage terms. For example, via Nasdaq’s website , the image below shows the sell-side analysts’ consensus 12 month price target for NVO as of October 9th, 2015: Since NVO closed at $54.61 on October 9th, the consensus price target suggests a 16.4% potential return over 12 months. In general, though, you’ll need to use the same time frame for each of your potential return calculations to facilitate comparisons of potential returns, hedging costs, and net potential returns. Our method starts with calculations of six-month potential returns. Finding inexpensive ways to hedge these securities Whatever hedging method you use, for this example, you’d want to make sure that each security is hedged against a greater-than-18% decline over the timeframe covered by your potential return calculations (our method attempts to find optimal static hedges using collars as well as protective puts going out approximately six months). And you’ll need to calculate your cost of hedging as a percentage of position value. Select the securities with highest, or at least positive, net potential returns When starting from a large universe of securities, you’d want to select the ones with the highest potential returns, net of hedging costs, but, at a minimum, you’d want to at least want to exclude any security that has a negative potential return net of hedging costs. It doesn’t make sense to pay X to hedge a stock if you estimate the stock will return

5 Top-Rated Healthcare Mutual Funds To Add To Your Portfolio

Healthcare mutual funds provide excellent choices for investors looking to enter this safe-haven sector, which is likely to protect their investment during a market downturn. The healthcare sector has proven to be one of the most desirable avenues during difficult times as it does not vary with market conditions. Also, several pharmaceutical companies have a history of paying regular dividends, which can help to offset the losses from plummeting share prices. Below we will share with you 5 top-ranked healthcare mutual funds. Each has earned a Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) as we expect these mutual funds to outperform their peers in the future. Fidelity Select Health Care Portfolio (MUTF: FSPHX ) seeks capital growth over the long run. FSPHX invests a major portion of its assets in companies involved in designing, manufacturing and selling healthcare products and services. FSPHX invests in companies across the world. The Fidelity Select Health Care Portfolio is a non-diversified fund and has returned 10.6% over the past one year. FSPHX has an expense ratio of 0.74% as compared to a category average of 1.35%. Fidelity Select Biotechnology Portfolio (MUTF: FBIOX ) invests a large share of its assets in companies primarily involved in research, development, manufacture and distribution of various biotechnological products. Factors such as financial strength and economic conditions are considered to invest in companies located anywhere in the world. The Fidelity Select Biotechnology Portfolio is a non-diversified fund and has returned 22.7% over the past one year. Rajiv Kaul is the fund manager and has managed FBIOX since 2005. Turner Medical Sciences Long/Short C (MUTF: TMSCX ) seeks capital appreciation. TMSCX invests a major chunk of its assets in healthcare firms. TMSCX uses a long/short growth strategy for reduction of volatility and capital preservation during a market downturn. TMSCX mainly focuses on acquiring securities of companies having market capitalizations greater than $250 million. TMSCX is expected to maintain a portfolio of 15 to 75 securities long, and 15 to 75 securities short. The Turner Medical Sciences Long/Short C has returned 11.1% over the past one year. TMSCX has an expense ratio of 1.50% as compared to a category average of 1.84%. Fidelity Select Medical Delivery Portfolio (MUTF: FSHCX ) invests largely in companies that either own or are involved in operating hospital and nursing homes, and are related to the healthcare services sector. FSHCX focuses on acquiring common stocks of both US and non-US companies. The Fidelity Select Medical Delivery Portfolio fund is non-diversified and has returned 19.9% over the last one-year period. Steven Bullock is the fund manager and has managed FSHCX since 2012. Fidelity Select Medical Equipment & Systems (MUTF: FSMEX ) seeks capital growth. FSMEX invests the majority of its assets in companies that are primarily involved in medical equipment and devices and the related technologies sector. FSMEX focuses on acquiring common stocks of companies by analyzing factors including financial strength and economic condition. FSMEX invests in both US and non-US companies. The Fidelity Select Medical Equipment & Systems is a non-diversified fund and has returned almost 14.3% over the past one year. As of August 2015, FSMEX held 55 issues with 23.57% of its assets invested in Medtronic PLC. Original Post

Fidelity Select Funds Portfolio Optimized For Low Volatility Performed Well In 2015

Summary LOW volatility portfolio: FIBIX, FSBIX, FSPHX, FSELX, FSCHX, FBMPX. MID volatility portfolio: FLBIX, FSBIX, FSPHX, FSELX, FSCHX, FBMPX. HIGH volatility portfolio: FLBIX, FIBIX, FSPHX, FSELX, FSCHX, FBMPX. The LOW volatility portfolio had a positive return so far in 2015 despite the interest rate uncertainty. In a previous article we presented the performance of a portfolio made up of five Fidelity select mutual funds. That portfolio had a stellar performance over the whole 27 year period starting in 1987. Back in July we decided to replace the GNMA fund (MUTF: FGMNX ) with two high quality government bonds. The performance of the two portfolios was discussed in the July article, the conclusion being that the new portfolio performed slightly better than the old one. In the first article I used a Relative Strength (RS) strategy based on a three-month look back evaluation period. In the second article I used a Mean-Variance Optimization (MVO) algorithm with 65-day look back evaluation period. While the MVO algorithm may approximate the RS algorithm if one selects the proper volatility target, the MVO strategy is very flexible, and it allows the investor to adapt it to the variable market environment. It turns out that during the first nine months of 2015 the RS strategy, as well as the Dual Momentum (DM) one, has performed poorly with a return of -15.22% for a 3-month look back, or -10.15% for a 12-month look back. The interested reader may verify the performance of Dual Momentum and Relative Strength on the portfoliovisualizer.com site. In this article we shall use only the MVO strategy and we want to emphasize the performance of the new portfolio during the first three quarters of 2015. We shall present three versions of this new portfolio for three levels of volatility: low, mid and high. The three versions are meant for investors with different risk tolerance. They also are meant for investors who may want to vary their risk level based on their evaluation of the markets. The portfolios are made up of the following funds: Fidelity Select Multimedia Portfolio (MUTF: FBMPX ) Fidelity Select Chemicals Portfolio (MUTF: FSCHX ) Fidelity Select Electronics Portfolio (MUTF: FSELX ) Fidelity Select Health Care Portfolio (MUTF: FSPHX ) Fidelity Spartan Long Term Treasuries Fund (MUTF: FLBIX ) Fidelity Spartan Intermediate Term Treasuries Fund (MUTF: FIBIX ) Fidelity Spartan Short Term Treasuries Fund (MUTF: FSBIX ) With the seven funds above, we created three portfolios to be used at three volatility levels: low, mid and high. All portfolios include the same four equity funds, but each one includes only two of the three treasury funds. The high risk uses FLBIX and FIBIX, the mid risk includes FLBIX and FSBIX, while the low risk has FIBIX and FSBIX. The data for the study were downloaded from Yahoo Finance on the Historical Prices menu for FBMPX, FSCHX, FSELX, FSPHX, FLBIX, FIBIX and FSBIX. We use the daily price data adjusted for dividend payments. The portfolio is managed as dictated by a variance-return optimization algorithm developed on the Modern Portfolio Theory ( Markowitz ). The allocation is rebalanced monthly at market closing of the first trading day of the month. In table 1 we present the performance of the portfolio for three levels of risk. Table 1. Portfolio performance from January 2007 to October 2015 TotRet% CAGR% VOL% maxDD% Sharpe Sortino 2015 return LOW risk 109.22 8.80 5.49 -7.50 1.60 2.10 1.75 MID risk 287.58 16.75 13.37 -16.97 1.25 1.69 -0.49 HIGH risk 569.16 24.26 20.22 -16.97 1.20 1.70 -2.45 The realized volatilities of the portfolios are in agreement with their names; the LOW risk had 5.49% annualized volatility, the MID had 13.37%, while the HIGH had 20.22%. Also, please notice the strong correlation between the returns CAGR and volatility of the portfolios. On the other hand, during 2015 the LOW volatility portfolio produced a positive return of 1.75%, while the MID and HIGH risk portfolio suffered negative returns. In figure 1 we show the graphs of the portfolio equities for the period from January 2007 to October 2015. (click to enlarge) Figure 1. Equity curves for three portfolios adaptively optimized for low, medium and high risk targets. Source: All charts in this article are based on EXCEL calculations using the adjusted daily closing share prices of securities. In figure 2, 3 and 4 we show the time variation of the percentage allocation of the funds for the period since January 2014 to October 2015. We opted for this shorter time period to get graphs that are easily readable. We are mostly interested in the allocations during 2015. (click to enlarge) Figure 2. Percentage allocation of the funds for low risk portfolio January 2014 to October 2015. One can see in figure 2 that most of the time the portfolio was invested about 50% in the short term treasury fund FSBIX. In figure 3 we show the time variation of the percentage allocation of the funds for mid risk. (click to enlarge) Figure 3. Percentage allocation of the funds for MID risk portfolio January 2014 to October 2015. (click to enlarge) Figure 4. Asset allocations for the portfolio adaptively optimized for the HIGH risk target January 2014 to October 2015.. Since July 2015 the high risk portfolio was invested 100% in treasuries; in FSLBX in July and August, and in FIBIX in September and October. The current fund allocations are shown in table 3. Table 3. Asset allocations for October 2015 FSELX FBMPX FSPHX FSCHX FLBIX FIBIX FSBIX LOW risk 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% MID risk 0% 0% 0% 0% 88% 0% 12% HIGH risk 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% Conclusion The low risk Fidelity select portfolio performed better than the mid and high risk portfolios. While the return of 1.75% is relatively modest, it is better than many other choices. The losses of the mid risk portfolio are very small at -0.49%, while the high risk portfolio lost the most at -2.45%. In hindsight, investing in a low risk portfolio was the better choice due to the fact that the market environment was very difficult since the beginning of 2015.