Tag Archives: seeking-alpha

Looking For REIT ETFs? Only 2 Of These 3 Should Be On Your Watch List

Summary These ETFs offer respectable dividend yields by investing in REITs. I see VNQ as the top ETF in the batch, but if either were to beat VNQ over the long term I think IYR has a better chance of doing. Due to similarity of holdings between VNQ and FRI, it would be difficult for FRI’s underlying assets to outperform VNQ’s assets by enough to cover the expense ratio difference. One of the areas I frequently cover is ETFs. I’ve been a large proponent of investors holding the core of their portfolio in high quality ETFs with very low expense ratios. The same argument can be made for passive mutual funds with very low expense ratios, though there are fewer of those. In this argument I’m doing a quick comparison of a few domestic equity REITs ETFs that investors may be contemplating. Ticker Name Index IYR iShares U.S. Real Estate ETF Dow Jones U.S. Real Estate Index VNQ Vanguard REIT Index ETF MSCI US REIT Index FRI First Trust S&P REIT Index ETF S&P United States REIT Index Dividend Yields I charted the dividend yields from Yahoo Finance for each portfolio. While IYR and VNQ are both yielding a little over 3.65%, the yield on FRI appears substantially lower. Since the yield was so weak I decided to look up the dividend history on Yahoo Finance and manually calculate it. Occasionally this results in a different value than the reported trailing yield. It isn’t common, but I wanted to double check some REITs ETFs will usually have higher dividend yields. There was no mistake that I could find. Expense Ratios The expense ratios run from .12% to .50%: VNQ is one of the cheapest REIT ETFs available. That is the reason I started building my own portfolio’s REIT allocation by buying up shares of VNQ. The combination of a very high yield and a low expense ratio made VNQ a natural choice for my portfolio. Strategy Earlier in the article I referenced which index each ETF would cover, but that doesn’t tell investors a great deal about how the individual allocations are created. Normally I would focus on comparing factors like the sector allocations of each ETF, but that wouldn’t make any sense when each ETF will simply be listed as being 100% invested in real estate. Fact Sheets To learn more about the ETFs, I pulled up the fact sheets for each: IYR’s Strategy Ironically, IYR does not explain their strategy in either the fact sheet or the general page on the ETF . I loaded up the prospectus on the ETF and finally found some answers. The fund managers use “a passive or indexing approach to try to achieve the Fund’s investment objective.” It is helpful to know that the fund is being passively managed, but it makes me wonder about the expense ratio. When the ratios are over .40% I usually expect to see some form of active management either in the portfolio or some rebalancing to follow an index that is changing significantly. The first response not being able to find the information I wanted in any of the three sources might be to look up the Dow Jones U.S. Real Estate Index, so I did that. It turns out that the Dow Jones Real Estate Indices do not include a single index with that precise name. Instead, they include several indexes with similar names. (click to enlarge) Without knowing precisely which of these indexes is being tracked, I don’t see a solid method to enhance the research. VNQ’s Strategy VNQ uses a passively managed, full-replication strategy and their index covers two-thirds of the REIT market. The fund’s management seeks to minimize their net tracking error by having a very low expense ratio. For investors that are not familiar with the net tracking error, it refers to the difference between the results of the ETF and the results of the index. A REIT is only eligible for inclusion in the index if it has a market capitalization of at least $100 million. RFI’s Strategy While the fact sheet does not discuss the strategy of the fund directly, they do discuss the index which gives us some insight. The index is maintained in a manner that includes implementation of daily corporate actions, quarterly updates of significant events, and the portfolio is reconstituted on an annual basis in September. The index appears to be passively managed as over each period the fund is lagging the index by a hair over the expense ratio. (click to enlarge) This is about how a passively managed fund should look when investors compare the NAV performance of the fund with the underlying index. An actively managed fund would miss by more significant amounts which could be outperforming the index or trailing it. Holding Similarity Since I’m seeing passively managed ETFs with materially different expense ratios, I wanted to determine how reasonable it would be for a substantial difference in performance. I checked the holdings of each ETF. The top holding across all 3 is Simon Property Group (NYSE: SPG ). It ranged from 7% to 8.35% of the holdings depending on which ETF I was looking at. VNQ and F had precisely the same top four holdings in the same order, though the percentage allocations varied slightly. Number two is Public Storage (NYSE: PSA ). Number three is Equity Residential (NYSE: EQR ). Number four is AvalonBay Communities (NYSE: AVB ). When the holdings are similar and the strategy is passive it is difficult to find any reason to expect the underlying portfolios to have materially different returns. IYR on the other hand did offer some different allocations. The second allocation there is American Tower Corp. (NYSE: AMT ) which is a REIT that operates cell phone towers. They are working in an oligopoly as there are only a few major cell phone tower REITs and the leasing structure on their facilities results in enormous economies of scale when they are able to increase the number of customers for each location. AMT is not in the top 10 holdings for either of the other REIT ETFs. Conclusion I tend to favor very passive management which is the trend for each of these ETFs. Without a compelling reason to pick either of the ETFs with a higher expense ratio, I see VNQ as the strongest REIT ETF in this batch. If IYR or FRI were to outperform VNQ over the longer term, I would expect it to be IYR because there appears to be a larger difference in the selection of securities which should reduce the correlation in the long run returns of the ETFs.

The Specter Of Risk In The Derivatives Of Bond Mutual Funds

By Fabio Cortes, Economist in the IMF’s Monetary and Capital Markets Department Current regulations only require U.S. and European bond mutual funds to disclose a limited amount of information about the risks they have taken using financial instruments called derivatives. This leaves investors and policymakers in the dark on a key issue for financial stability. Our new research in the October 2015 Global Financial Stability Report looks at just how much is at stake. A number of large bond mutual funds use derivatives-contracts that permit investors to bet on the future direction of interest rates. However, unlike bonds, most derivatives only require a small deposit to make the investment, which amplifies their potential gains through leverage, or borrowed money. For this reason, leveraged investments are potentially more profitable, as the gains on invested capital can be larger. For the same reason, losses can be much larger. Derivatives offer mutual fund managers a flexible and less capital intensive alternative to bonds when managing their portfolios. When used to insure against potential changes in interest rates, they are a useful tool. When used to speculate, they can be bad news given the potential for big losses when bets go wrong. Strong growth in the assets of bond mutual funds active in derivatives The assets of large bond mutual funds that use derivatives have increased significantly since the global financial crisis. As you can see below in Chart 1, we now estimate they amount to more than $900 billion, or about 13 percent of the world’s bond mutual fund sector. While existing regulations in the United States and the European Union on mutual funds impose clear limits on cash borrowing levels, the amount of leverage that can be achieved through derivatives exposure is potentially large, often multiples of the market value of their portfolios. This may explain why mutual funds accounting for about 2/3 of the assets in our sample disclose derivatives leverage ranging from 100 percent to 1000 percent of net asset value in their annual reports. This range may be also conservative as these are the notional exposures of derivatives adjusted for hedging and netting at the fund manager’s discretion. What makes them sensitive to higher rates and volatile financial markets Although these leveraged bond mutual funds have not performed differently to benchmarks over the past three years, their relative performance has occurred in a period of both low interest rates and low volatility, which may mask the risks of leverage. This is because the market value of a number of speculative derivatives positions could have been unaffected by the relatively small changes in the price of fixed income assets. In addition, limited investor withdrawals from leveraged bond mutual funds may have also masked the risks of fund managers having to sell-off illiquid derivatives to pay for investor redemptions. In our analysis we find that a portion of leveraged bond mutual funds exhibit both relatively high leverage and sensitivity to the returns of U.S. fixed-income benchmarks, depicted in Chart 2 below. This combination raises a risk that losses from highly leveraged derivatives could accelerate in a scenario where market volatility and U.S. bond yields suddenly rise. Investors in leveraged bond mutual funds, when faced with a rapid deterioration in the value of their investments, may rush to cash in, particularly if this results in greater than expected losses relative to benchmarks (and the historical performance of their investments). This could then reinforce a vicious cycle of fire sales by mutual fund managers, further investor losses and redemptions, and more volatility. Improve disclosure: regulators need to act Making a comprehensive assessment of these risks is problematic due to insufficient data; lack of oversight by regulators compounds the risks. The latest proposals by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to enhance regulations and improve disclosure on the derivatives of mutual funds is a welcome step. There is currently no requirement for disclosing leverage data in the United States (and only on a selected basis in some European Union countries). Implementing detailed and globally consistent reporting standards across the asset management industry would give regulators the data necessary to locate and measure the extent of leverage risks. Reporting standards should include enough leverage information (level of cash, assets, and derivatives) to show mutual funds’ sensitivity to large market moves-for example, bond funds should report their sensitivity to rate and credit market moves-and to facilitate meaningful analysis of risks across the financial sector.

Transamerica Launches Global Equity Long-Short Fund

By DailyAlts Staff Global equity long/short funds offer investors a ready-made portfolio of “long” (owned) and “short” (sold-short) stocks from all over the world. These funds can generally serve a core or satellite role within a diversified investment portfolio. Most long/short equity funds have long-term capital appreciation as their primary objective, with downside protection as a natural secondary benefit. What separates these funds are the strategies they employ in pursuit of these objectives, and the skill of the managers employing them. Sub-Advised by Picton Mahoney On November 30, Transamerica launched its own global long/short mutual fund: the Transamerica Global Long/Short Equity Fund (MUTF: TAEAX ). The fund is sub-advised by Picton Mahoney Asset Management and overseen by Michael Kimmel and Jung (Michael) L. Kuan, a pair of CFA portfolio managers from Transamerica. The managers combine quantitative and fundamental analysis in the fund’s investment process. Under normal circumstances, the fund will have 25% to 75% net-long exposure to the global equity market. Its investments may include common stocks, convertible securities, REITs, and rights and warrants for the purchase of common stocks and other equity investments. The fund may also employ options strategies, including but not limited to covered-call and put writing, to increase income. Fundamental, Factor-Driven Approach Picton Mahoney employs fundamental research and quantitative models to generate ideas for long and short positions, and then uses a multi-factor model that emphasizes fundamental change, valuation, growth, and quality. Up to 20% of the fund’s net assets (including long and short positions and derivative exposure) may be invested in emerging market securities. In addition, the fund expects to have approximately 25-75% net long exposure to the global equity market. Shares of the new fund are available in two classes: A (TAEAX) and I (MUTF: TAEIX ). The management fee on both share classes is 1.00%, while the respective net-expense ratios are 3.89% and 3.64%. The expense ratios include 2.09% for dividend and interest expense on short positions, which is an expense of running a long/short portfolio. The respective initial minimum investments for each share class are $1,000 and $1 million. For more information, view a copy of the fund’s prospectus .