Tag Archives: seeking-alpha

Treating The SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF Like Any Other Investment

Summary The fund holds several dividend champions, but the yield on the index and the ETF are still a bit weak. The sector allocation is fairly aggressive even though the individual companies should be safer than the rest of the sector they represent. Concerns about the strong dollar and rising domestic rates make me prefer a more defensive sector allocation. DIA has an interesting allocation strategy that made a great deal of sense prior to the invention of computers. The SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF (NYSEARCA: DIA ) is an ETF that is often referenced in stock trackers or in articles referencing the entire economy. However, there seems to be little analysis focused on the real ETF despite having over $10 billion in assets under management. I intend to treat DIA like any other equity ETF in this analysis and look at the fund as an investment rather than as a proxy for parts of the economy. Quick Facts The expense ratio is a mere .17%. That isn’t absurdly high for domestic equity, but it is higher than I would have expected for a very large ETF with a remarkably simple allocation strategy. Holdings I put together the following chart to demonstrate the weight of the top 10 holdings: (click to enlarge) The underlying holdings don’t bother me. 3M (NYSE: MMM ) is a great dividend champion and has an exceptionally diversified product line which includes so many brands and household items that there are probably several items created by 3M within a few feet of you. The portfolio is filled with established dividend champions. Okay, Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL ) won’t be confused with a dividend champion any time soon but for the sheer size of the company it would be strange for DIA to exclude them from the group. Sectors (click to enlarge) The sector exposure feels fairly aggressive to me with the top weightings coming from the industrial sector and consumer discretionary. You may notice that health care and consumer staples each appear to be underweight with utilities coming in at a solid 0%. These are three relatively defensive sectors that I would want to be overweighting when the P/E ratios across the market are getting fairly high. With a strong U.S. Dollar weakening exports and driving down expectations for sales and earnings in the domestic economy and an expectation for higher short term rates coming, it feels like an aggressive sector allocation. On the other hand, if I was going to run such an aggressive sector allocation I would want to be overweighting the companies with a long history and a solid dividend. The individual companies look like some of the safer allocations for their respective sectors. Energy That energy allocation is fairly light. I’ll grant that the sector has done very poorly, but I still like having exposure to the larger companies in the sector like Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM ). Exxon Mobil and Chevron (NYSE: CVX ) are the two oil exposures here and I like both of them for the long term despite the potential for more pressure on prices in the short term. Strategy It would be absurd to talk about the ETF directly without bringing up the allocation strategy. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is oldest continuing U.S. market index with over 100 years of index history. It simply holds an equal number of shares in each of the 30 companies within the index. The method is a little strange since many ETFs would simply use a market cap weighting. Instead, the weightings are fairly arbitrary as a function of share prices which results in overweighting anything with a high share price and underweighting anything with a low share price. Dividend Yield If we’re going to contemplate DIA as a normal ETF investment, then it is natural to incorporate the dividend yield. The fund dividend yield is 2.31% while the underlying index has a dividend yield of 2.53%. Conclusion The SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF tracks the oldest continuing index in the United States. The expense ratio isn’t very high, but it is higher than I would expect for the incredibly simple allocation strategy. The simple strategy, which made great sense prior to computers, results in a fairly interesting sector weighting. I find the underlying companies to be less dangerous than the sectors they represent, but as an investment I would prefer something more defensive sector allocations given my concerns about the potential for the market to suffer some setbacks in a challenging macroeconomic environment.

4 Tactical/Momentum ETFs: A Disappointing 1-Year Anniversary

Summary Four ETFs, introduced late last year, have the ability to switch between stocks and bonds, on a tactical/momentum basis. How did these four funds fare during the August correction? Since inception, only one of the four ETFs has outperformed the global market portfolio. Introduction In a Nov. 2014 article entitled ” Comparing 4 Tactical/Momentum ETFs “, I introduced four newly-debuted tactical/momentum ETFs that have, at the minimum, the ability to switch between stocks and bonds depending on tactical factors such as momentum (thus equity-only momentum funds are not considered). I later provided a short update on the performance of the four ETFs in a Aug. 2015 article entitled ” An Update On 4 Tactical/Momentum ETFs “. In that article, I noted that while the four ETFs averaged only -1.19% over the preceding nine months, underperforming U.S. stocks (via the SPDR S&P 500 Trust ETF (NYSEARCA: SPY )) at +5.35%. However, that update article was published just before the S&P 500’s first 10% correction in several years. The last few months of market action has been…interesting, to say the least, and with the 1-year birthday of these four tactical/momentum ETFs having just recently elapsed, I thought that now would be a good time to review the performance and allocation of these four funds. The funds The four funds included in this analysis listed below. For more detailed information regarding these funds, please refer to my previous article . Cambria Global Momentum ETF (NYSEARCA: GMOM ). GMOM invests in the top 33% of a target universe of 50 ETFs based on measures of trailing momentum and trend. The fund rebalance monthly into ETFs with strong momentum and are in an uptrend over the medium term of approximately 12 months with systematic rules for entry and exit. Global X JPMorgan US Sector Rotator Index ETF (NYSEARCA: SCTO ). SCTO invests in a portfolio of one to five ETFs selected out of a pool of ten U.S. sector ETFs and the iShares 1-3 Year Treasury Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: SHY ). The fund rebalances monthly to invest in a maximum of 5 U.S. sectors that have demonstrated the strongest positive recent performance. If less than 5 sectors have demonstrated positive performance over this time period, the remainder will go to SHY. Global X JPMorgan Efficiente Index ETF (NYSEARCA: EFFE ). EFFE invests in any combination of 13 ETFs drawn from 5 asset classes. The fund rebalances monthly, constructing an “efficient frontier” by calculating the 6-month returns and volatilities of multiple hypothetical portfolios based on different combinations of the index component universe, then selects the combination of assets that resulted in the highest return over the 6 month observation period with an annual realized volatility of 10% or less. Arrow DWA Tactical ETF (NASDAQ: DWAT ). Implements a proprietary Relative Strength Global Macro model developed by Dorsey Wright & Associates, holding approximately 10 broad-based positions. Assets include long/short exposure to domestic, international and emerging market equities and bonds (government, corporate, agency), real estate, currencies and commodities. Details of the four funds are shown in the table below (data from Morningstar ).   GMOM SCTO EFFE DWAT Yield [ttm] 2.33% 0.50% 0.68% 0.39% Total expense ratio 0.94% 0.86% 0.86% 1.52% Management fee 0.59% 0.69% 0.69% 1.22%* Acquired expense ratio 0.35% 0.17% 0.17% 0.30% Inception Nov 4,2014 Oct 22,2014 Oct 22,2014 Oct 1,2014 Assets $25.92M $13.47M $8.11M $7.80M Avg vol. 12K 11K 12K 7.6K Annual turnover 16% 63% – 111% *Composed of management fee 1.00%, other expenses 0.22%. All four funds have low but not negligible volume, and should provide sufficient liquidity for ordinary investors. Additionally, all four funds have increased in assets since a year ago. GMOM increased slightly from $23.85M to $25.92M, while SCTO increased from $11.54 to $13.47. DWAT showed a sizable increase from $5.18M to $7.80. However, the biggest winner over the pats year appears to be EFFE, which more than tripled in size, from $2.58M to $8.11M. Performance Let’s now take a look at the performance of the four tactical/momentum ETFs in 2015, with the U.S. market (via SPY) included for comparison. GMOM Total Return Price data by YCharts The analysis of this total return price chart reveals some interesting features. Firstly, none of the tactical/momentum ETFs were able to keep pace with SPY in the first eight months of the year, i.e. before the August correction. This might not be surprising for GMOM, even EFFE and DWAT, as these draw ETFs from a wide pool of asset classes and not only U.S. equities, which has been one of the best-performing markets during this difficult year. However, the egregious performance of SCTO is concerning. The fact that SCTO underperformed SPY by the largest margin over the first eight months of 2015 is especially surprising given that its investment universe is restricted to only U.S. industry sectors and what is essentially a cash proxy! How on earth did it lag SPY by nearly 10% over the first eight months of the year if its mandate is to “invest in a maximum of 5 U.S. sectors that have demonstrated the strongest positive recent performance.” Global X provides a monthly allocation report for SCTO. We can see from the report that has had significantly allocations to SHY (i.e. cash) during the first eight months of the year, ranging from 20% in Feb. 2015 to 80% in Jul. 2015. (click to enlarge) Can we understand the reasons for SCTO’s serious underperformance compared to both SPY as well as the other three tactical/momentum ETFs? Analysis of the monthly allocations of SCTO suggests that this may have been due to the ETF being too sensitive to fluctuations in the equity markets, causing it to switch very frequently between equity and cash. For example, SPY suffered a -2.96% loss in Jan. 2015, which caused SCTO to switch to 80% equities in defensive sectors such as REITs (NYSEARCA: RWR ), consumer staples (NYSEARCA: XLP ), healthcare (NYSEARCA: XLV ) and utilities (NYSEARCA: XLU ) and 20% cash at the start of February. Of course, SPY then posted a 5.62% return in February, led by high-beta stocks, and the defensively-positioned SCTO sorely lagged during this rally. Similarly, SCTO was 100% invested in equities when SPY suffered a -2.03% loss in Jun. 2015, then switched to 80% cash for July, during which SPY reversed course to the tune of a 2.26% gain. SCTO then switched BACK to 100% equities at the start of August, just in time for the correction. Talk about bad timing! But let’s step back and analyze all four of the ETFs during this period. Responding to the correction The following chart shows the total return performance of the four tactical/momentum ETFs as well as the U.S. equity market and the U.S. bond market (NYSEARCA: AGG ) from just before the August correction to the end of the year. GMOM Total Return Price data by YCharts All four tactical/momentum ETFs dropped sharply with SPY in August as the correction hit. This is not surprising given that most of these ETFs would be expected to have a sizable allocation to U.S. equities given its status as one of the better-performing markets in early 2015. However, what happens after the correction is illuminating. At the start of September, GMOM, SCTO and EFFE decrease suddenly in volatility, suggesting that they have shifted significantly to bonds or cash. This is confirmed at least for SCTO which showed a 100% allocation cash in September. This shift therefore allowed those three funds to avoid the equity market gyrations in September. On the other hand, the performance of DWAT tracked closely with SPY, suggesting that this fund had not yet made a switch away from equity holdings. As expected, none of four ETFs were able to capture the ferocious snap-back rally exhibited by SPY in October (+8.51%). DWAT increased by around half that of SPY, while SCTO also rose slightly due to its 18.6% allocation to REITs and 21.4% allocation to utilities, however, the rest of SCTO was in cash. Rather unfortunately, all four funds appear to have switched back into an equity-heavy portfolio in November and December, just as the rally subsided and choppy market behavior resumed. This can be deduced given that all four ETFs follow the ebbs and flow of the broader market during these two months. Discussion and conclusion To say that all four tactical/momentum ETFs have disappointed in their first year of existence would be an understatement. None of the four funds were able to avoid the August correction of 2015. Three of the four funds (GMOM, SCTO and EFFE) then switched to cash or bond-heavy portfolios in September, which caused them to completely miss the stock market rebound a month later. This phenomenon was more comprehensively analyzed for GMOM in my Nov. 11 article ” GMOM: Momentum Swings From Bonds Back To Stocks “. On the other hand, based on its price action compare to SPY, DWAT appeared to remain fully invested in equities in September, but reduced its equity exposure to approximately 50% in October. As DWAT is an actively-managed ETF, it is not clear whether the delayed reduction of equity exposure involved any discretionary decisions by the portfolio manager. The next chart shows the total return performance, over the past 13 months, of the four ETFs compared to both SPY and a global market portfolio (via the Cambria Global Asset Allocation ETF (NYSEARCA: GAA )) at -1.02%, which Seeking Alpha author GestaltU has proposed is a superior benchmark for global tactical asset allocation [GTAA] strategies than the S&P500. We can see from the chart below that DWAT has had the best total return performance of -2.77% out of the four tactical/momentum ETFs during this time span, followed by GMOM at -6.87%. EFFE and SCTO had the lowest total return performances of -8.02% and -8.96%, respectively. Thus, DWAT was the only ETF to outperform the global market portfolio GAA since last November, and all four ETFs underperformed SPY. GMOM Total Return Price data by YCharts Going forward, what can we expect from these ETFs? Currently, the four ETFs show very different equity/bond distributions (data from Morningstar). SCTO has the highest equity allocation at nearly 100%, followed by DWAT at 74%. GMOM has a nearly 50:50 split of equities and bonds. EFFE is the only ETF with more bonds (60%) than stocks (40%). However, given that at least three of the four funds (all except DWAT, whose schedule is unspecified) rebalance monthly, these allocations are likely to change in January. In terms of the North American (mainly U.S.) versus international allocation of their equity portion, all except GMOM are fully domestic. GMOM contains 87% U.S. equities and 13% international equities. On a personal level, I have sold my holdings of GMOM a few months ago. I have replaced this the iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor Index ETF (NYSEARCA: MTUM ) (as described in Left Banker’s article here ). My existing holding of the First Trust Dorsey Wright Focus 5 ETF (NASDAQ: FV ) has also done very well. Both have outperformed SPY over the past year. MTUM Total Return Price data by YCharts Note that those two ETFs are momentum-based but are not “tactical” in the sense that they cannot switch to bonds or cash, and moreover they are purely U.S. based. If the U.S. market enters a bear market, it is likely that those two funds will underperform the tactical/momentum ETFs described above. I am simply performance chasing the U.S. market here? Perhaps, but I lost patience in watching the NAV of GMOM gradually decline as it got caught between whipsaws. With my sale of GMOM, this will likely be my last article on tactical/momentum ETFs for the time being, unless their performance improves to such an extent that they warrant consideration for investment.

The Time To Hedge Is Now! December 2015 Update

Summary Overview of strategy series and why I hedge. Short summary of how the strategy has worked so far. Some new positions I want to consider. Discussion of risk involved in this hedge strategy. Back to Do Not Rely On Gold Strategy Overview If you are new to this series, you will likely find it useful to refer back to the original articles, all of which are listed with links in this instablog . It may be more difficult to follow the logic without reading Parts I, II and IV. In Part I of this series, I provided an overview of a strategy to protect an equity portfolio from heavy losses in a market crash. In Part II, I provided more explanation of how the strategy works and gave the first two candidate companies to choose from as part of a diversified basket using put option contracts. I also provided an explanation of the candidate selection process and an example of how it can help grow both capital and income over the long term. Part III provided a basic tutorial on options. Part IV explained my process for selecting options and Part V explained why I prefer to not use ETFs for hedging. Parts VI through IX primarily provide additional candidates for use in the strategy. Part X explains my rules that guide my exit strategy. All of the articles in this series include varying views that I consider to be worthy of contemplation regarding possible triggers that could lead to another sizeable market correction. I want to make it very clear that I am NOT predicting a market crash. I merely like to take some of the pain out of the downside to make it easier to stick to my investing plan: select superior companies that have sustainable advantages, consistently rising dividends and excellent long-term growth prospects. Then I like to hold onto those investments unless the fundamental reasons for which I bought them in the first place changes. Investing long term works! If you are interested in a more detailed explanation of my investment philosophy, please consider reading ” How I Created My Own Portfolio Over a Lifetime .” Why I Hedge If the market (and your portfolio) drops by 50 percent, you will need to double your assets from the new lower level just to get back to even. I prefer to avoid such pain, both financial and emotional. If the market drops by 50 percent and I only lose 20 percent (but keep collecting my dividends all the while), I only need a gain of 25 percent to get back to even. That is much easier to accomplish than doubling a portfolio and takes less time. Trust me, I have done it both ways, and losing less puts me way ahead of the crowd when the dust settles. I view insurance, like hedging, as a necessary evil to avoid significant financial setbacks. From my point of view, those who do not hedge are trying to time the market, in my humble opinion. They intend to sell when the market turns but always buy the dips. While buying the dips is a sound strategy, it does not work well when the “dip” evolves into a full-blown bear market. At that point, the eternal bull finds himself catching the proverbial rain of falling knives as his/her portfolio tanks. Then panic sets in and the typical investor sells when they should be getting ready to buy. A short summary of how the strategy has worked so far I have been hedged since April 2014. In 2014, our only significant candidate win was Terex (NYSE: TEX ) which provided gains of over 600 percent to help offset some of my cost. I missed taking some profits in October of 2014 that could have put me in the black for the year, but by doing so, I would have left my portfolio too exposed, so I let most of those positions expire worthless. It is insurance, after all. The results for 2015 have been stellar! I like it when the market gives me a gain in early December because the likelihood of a year-end (Santa Claus) rally is very high and will usually give me an opportunity to redeploy the profits before the rest of my positions expire. I could have taken more gains but decided to leave some on the table in case the rally did not materialize to keep my portfolio mostly protected. I explained all my moves in the last article of the series linked at the top. My biggest winners in 2015 were Men’s Wearhouse (NYSE: MW ) with gains of over 2,700 percent, Micron Technologies (NASDAQ: MU ) with gains of up to 1,012 percent, Sotheby’s (NYSE: BID ) with gains of up to 1,500 percent, Seagate Technologies (NASDAQ: STX ) gaining over 570 percent, and Williams-Sonoma (NYSE: WSM ) with a gain of 527 percent. The gains realized on sold positions now puts me in a position of needing to add some hedges going into 2016, but with plenty of available cash. I will only deploy enough of those gains to protect my portfolio through the end of June 2016 and hold onto the rest to be deployed into new positions to provide a hedge through January 2017. Some new positions I want to consider Do not forget that I usually buy multiple positions in each candidate that I use and you should, too, unless you get in at a particularly good premium and strike. I add positions as I find I can do better than what I already own in order to improve my overall hedge. Sometimes I may buy only half or a third of the position I intend to own in the first purchase. As we get deeper into this bull market (if it still is a bull), I try to stay closer to fully hedged as much as possible. I will be hedging most of my portfolio again over the next month or so since most of my remaining positions are set to expire in mid-January of 2016. I cannot emphasize this enough: buy put options on strong rally days! Here is the list of what I would buy next and the premiums at which I would make the purchases. I may get in if the premium gets down close to my buy price and you will need to make such decisions for yourself. This is a different format from what I have used prior to this month. I will be placing good until cancelled orders at or just below my target premiums to get the positions I want when available without my having to watch daily. I list the candidates in the order of my preference. I will explain how many contracts per $100,000 of portfolio value will be needed and list the expiration months below the table. Symbol Current Price Target Price Strike Price Ask Prem Buy At Prem Poss. % Gain Tot. Est. $ Hedge % Cost of Portfolio RCL $99.92 $22 $75 $1.85 $1.80 2,844 $5,120 0.180% GT $32.79 $8 $28 $1.25 $1.25 1,500 $3,750 0.250% ADSK $61.85 $24 $50 $2.03 $1.80 1,344 $4,840 0.360% SIX $54.63 $20 $45 $1.30 $1.20 1,983 $4,760 0.240% LB $96.82 $30 $85 $2.65 $2.50 2,100 $5,250 0.250% LVLT $54.40 $20 $48 $2.20 $1.90 1,374 $2,610 0.190% TPX $71.64 $20 $60 $2.85 $2.50 1,500 $3,750 0.250% UAL $59.78 $18 $50 $2.29 $2.00 1,500 $3,000 0.200% MAS $28.44 $10 $25 $1.25 $0.85 1,665 $4,245 0.255% ETFC $29.71 $7 $27 $1.87 $1.25 1,500 $3,750 0.250% I will need only one June 2016 RCL put option contract to provide the coverage indicated in the above table. Remember that this is one of eight positions, each designed to hedge one-eighth of a $100,000 portfolio against a 30 percent drop in the S&P 500 Index. I will need eight positions from the table above to protect each $100,000 of equity portfolio value. To protect a $500,000 portfolio, I would need to multiply the number of contracts in each of my five positions by five to be fully protected. Below is a list of the expiration month (all expire in 2016) and number contracts needed for each position I use. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (NYSE: RCL ) June One Goodyear Tire (NASDAQ: GT ) July Two Autodesk (NASDAQ: ADSK ) July Two Six Flags (NYSE: SIX ) June Two L Brands (NYSE: LB ) May One Level 3 Communications (NYSE: LVLT ) June One Tempur Sealy (NYSE: TPX ) June One United Continental (NYSE: UAL ) June One Masco (NYSE: MAS ) July Three E – Trade Financial (NASDAQ: ETFC ) June Two If I use only the first eight positions listed above, I would protect each $100,000 of equity portfolio value against a drop of approximately $33,080 for a cost of $1,920 (plus commissions). What this means is that if the market falls by 30 percent, my hedge positions should more than offset the losses to my portfolio. This coverage only provides about six months of additional protection, but I have more than double that from my gains taken this year. Hopefully, there will more gains available to further offset future losses come summer and I will roll my positions again (and again, if necessary) until we finally have a recession. Both MAS and ETFC “Buy at Premiums” listed above are below the range of the current bid and ask premiums. That was the case with all of the premiums I used in the last article and most of those have been achieved already. Patience often pays off in lower costs. All of the other premiums listed are within the current range and should be available either immediately or with a small additional rally. I do not intend to chase these premiums and will try to get lower premiums when available. I expect that the current rally could extend into year-end giving me a better entry point on some of these candidates and possibly some others that just do not work at this level. I will provide another update if that opportunity occurs. But I am not ready to take that possibility to the bank, so I will place some orders Monday morning. I do not try to hedge the bond portion of my portfolio with equity options. For those who would like to hedge against a rout in high-yield bonds, I use options on JNK and may add HYG as a candidate for that purpose. If that seems interesting, please consider my recent article on the subject. Discussion of risk involved in this hedge strategy If an investor decides to employ this hedge strategy, each individual needs to do some additional due diligence to identify which candidates they wish to use and which contracts are best suited for their respective risk tolerance. I do not always choose the option contract with the highest possible gain or the lowest cost. I should also point out that in many cases I will own several different contracts with different strikes on one company. I do so because as the strike rises, the hedge kicks in sooner, but I buy a mix to keep the overall cost down. To accomplish this, I generally add new positions at the new strikes over time, especially when the stock is near its recent high. My goal is to commit approximately two percent (but up to three percent, if necessary) of my portfolio value to this hedge per year. If we need to roll positions before expiration there may be additional costs involved, so I try to hold down costs for each round that is necessary. My expectation is that this represents the last time we should need to roll positions before we see the benefit of this strategy work more fully. We have been fortunate enough this past year to have ample gains to cover our hedge costs for the next year. The previous year, we were able to reduce the cost to below one percent due to gains taken. Thus, over the full 20 months since I began writing this series, our total cost to hedge has turned out to be less than one percent. I want to discuss risk for a moment now. Obviously, if the market continues higher beyond January 2016, all of our old January expiration option contracts that we have open could expire worthless. I have never found insurance offered for free. We could lose all of our initial premiums paid plus commissions, except for those gains we have already collected. If I expected that to happen, I would not be using the strategy myself. But it is one of the potential outcomes and readers should be aware of it. I have already begun to initiate another round of put options for expiration beyond January 2016, using up to two percent of my portfolio (fully offset this year by realized gains) to hedge for another year. The longer the bulls maintain control of the market the more the insurance is likely to cost me. But I will not be worrying about the next crash. Peace of mind has a cost. I just like to keep it as low as possible. Because of the uncertainty in terms of how much longer this bull market can be sustained and the potential risk versus reward potential of hedging versus not hedging, it is my preference to risk a small percentage of my principal (perhaps as much as two percent per year) to insure against losing a much larger portion of my capital (30 to 50 percent). But this is a decision that each investor needs to make for themselves. I do not commit more than three percent of my portfolio value to an initial hedge strategy position and have never committed more than ten percent to such a strategy in total before a major market downturn has occurred. The ten percent rule may come into play when a bull market continues much longer than expected (like five years instead of 18 months). And when the bull continues for longer than is supported by the fundamentals, the bear that follows is usually deeper than it otherwise would have been. In other words, at this point, I would expect the next bear market to be more like the last two, especially if the market continues higher through all of 2016. Anything is possible but if I am right, protecting a portfolio becomes ever more important as the bull market continues. As always, I welcome comments and will try to address any concerns or questions either in the comments section or in a future article as soon as I can. The great thing about Seeking Alpha is that we can agree to disagree and, through respectful discussion, learn from each other’s experience and knowledge.