Tag Archives: seeking

How To Avoid The Worst Style Mutual Funds: Q4’15

Summary The large number of mutual funds has little to do with serving your best interests. Below are three red flags you can use to avoid the worst mutual funds. The following presents the least and most expensive style mutual funds as well as the worst overall style mutual funds per our Q4’15 style ratings. Question: Why are there so many mutual funds? Answer: Mutual fund providers tend to make lots of money on each fund so they create more products to sell. The large number of mutual funds has little to do with serving investors’ best interests. Below are three red flags investors can use to avoid the worst mutual funds: Inadequate Liquidity This issue is the easiest issue to avoid, and our advice is simple. Avoid all mutual funds with less than $100 million in assets. Low levels of liquidity can lead to a discrepancy between the price of the mutual fund and the underlying value of the securities it holds. Plus, low asset levels tend to mean lower volume in the mutual fund and larger bid-ask spreads. High Fees Mutual funds should be cheap, but not all of them are. The first step here is to know what is cheap and expensive. To ensure you are paying at or below average fees, invest only in mutual funds with total annual costs below 1.92%, which is the average total annual cost of the 5514 U.S. equity style mutual funds we cover. Figure 1 shows the most and least expensive style mutual funds. Rydex provides four of the most expensive mutual funds while Vanguard mutual funds are among the cheapest. Figure 1: 5 Least and Most Expensive Style Mutual Funds (click to enlarge) Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Investors need not pay high fees for quality holdings. The Calvert Large Cap Core Portfolio (MUTF: CMIIX ) earns our Very Attractive rating and has low total annual costs of only 1.04%. On the other hand, the Fidelity Spartan Mid Cap Index Fund (MUTF: FSMDX ) earns our Neutral rating because it holds poor stocks. No matter how cheap a mutual fund, if it holds bad stocks, its performance will be bad. The quality of a mutual fund’s holdings matters more than its price. Poor Holdings Avoiding poor holdings is by far the hardest part of avoiding bad mutual funds, but it is also the most important because a mutual fund’s performance is determined more by its holdings than its costs. Figure 2 shows the mutual funds within each style with the worst holdings or portfolio management ratings . Figure 2: Style Mutual Funds with the Worst Holdings (click to enlarge) Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings Professionally Managed Portfolios appears more often than any other providers in Figure 2, which means that they offer the most mutual funds with the worst holdings. Our overall ratings on mutual funds are based primarily on our stock ratings of their holdings. The Danger Within Buying a mutual fund without analyzing its holdings is like buying a stock without analyzing its business and finances. Put another way, research on mutual fund holdings is necessary due diligence because a mutual fund’s performance is only as good as its holdings’ performance. Barron’s agrees . PERFORMANCE OF MUTUAL FUND’s HOLDINGs = PERFORMANCE OF MUTUAL FUND Disclosure: David Trainer and Kyle Guske II receive no compensation to write about any specific stock, style, or theme.

Why PE Ratios Are Not A Good Measure Of Value

Summary PE ratios are commonly used as a metric to determine “value”. However, PE ratios are unreliable for a number of reasons and earnings actually have no correlation with valuations. Return on invested capital is a better measure of value and has significant correlation with valuation. We’ve pointed out the flaws in the price to earnings (PE) ratio many times before. Chief among these flaws is the fact that the accounting earnings used in the ratio are unreliable for many reasons: Accounting rules can change, shifting reported earnings without any real change in the underlying business. The large number of accounting loopholes makes it easy for executives to mislead investors. PE ratios overlook assets and liabilities that have a material impact on valuation. It should come as no surprise that empirical research shows accounting earnings have almost no impact on long-term valuations. No Correlation Between Earnings And Value If accounting earnings actually drove valuations, then companies with high EPS growth should command higher multiples, and companies with low or negative EPS growth should have lower PE multiples. As Figure 1 shows, this correlation is nearly nonexistent. Figure 1: EPS Growth Has Almost No Impact On Valuation (click to enlarge) Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings. The r-squared value of 0.0006 in Figure 1 shows that EPS growth over the past five years explains less than one tenth of one percent of the difference in price between stocks in the S&P 500. Stocks can see their PE multiples expand and contract in a manner that has almost nothing to do with changes in EPS, which makes looking at these metrics a poor indicator of valuation or future returns. The Market Cares More About ROIC Many other studies have found the same lack of correlation between earnings growth and stock price. Instead, we find that valuations tend to be driven largely by return on invested capital ( ROIC ). Figure 2 shows that ROIC is highly correlated with Enterprise Value/Invested Capital (a cleaner version of price to book). Figure 2: ROIC Is The Primary Driver Of Stock Price (click to enlarge) Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings. ROIC explains nearly two thirds of the difference in valuations between various companies. That means companies that can improve their ROIC are more likely to grow their stock price in the market. Short Term Vs. Long Term Drivers “But wait!” you might be saying. “I know accounting earnings have an impact on valuations. I’ve seen stock prices rise and fall dramatically based on a company’s quarterly earnings report.” This is true. It’s clear that headline numbers can have an immediate and sometimes dramatic influence on stock prices. The key word in that sentence is “immediate”. A big increase in EPS might drive short-term gains in stock prices, but it won’t create long-term value. To understand the cause of this divergence, you have to understand the different types of investors in the market. Brian Bushee from the Wharton School of Business wrote an excellent paper back in 2005 that highlighted the behavioral differences among institutional investors. His research found that: 61% of institutional investors are “Quasi-Indexers”. They hold many small stakes with low turnover, so they have little impact on market valuations. 31% of institutional investors are “Transients”. They have small stakes but a high turnover, so their high volume of trading can impact valuations in the short term. 8% of institutional investors are “Dedicated”. They take large stakes and hold them for a very long time. These are the investors that drive long-term valuations. A big earnings beat might cause a lot of “Transient” investors to buy that stock, pushing up the price, but most of these investors will sell their stakes not long after, pushing the price back down. They can create spikes, but their impact on the long-term performance of the stock is next to nothing. Instead, it’s that small percentage of “Dedicated” investors that are responsible for the majority of long-term performance. These are highly sophisticated individuals that take a long time evaluating stocks before taking large positions that they hold through bouts of volatility. Why You Have To Look At The Balance Sheet And Cost Of Capital The central flaw of the PE ratio holds true for many of the other common ratios such as: Enterprise Value/EBITDA Price to Earnings Growth (PEG) Price to Operating Cash Flow Price to Sales All of these ratios ignore the cost of the capital that the company uses to drive profits. To understand why cost of capital is so important, imagine this hypothetical scenario: you have an infinitely wealthy investor who is willing to offer you an unlimited source of equity capital. You take the money from this investor and put it in a low-yielding savings account. The more money you take from this investor, the more your interest payments, or “earnings”, will grow, but you’re not actually creating any value. In fact, by earning such a low return on that money compared to what they could earn elsewhere, you’ve actually destroyed value. The use of these flawed metrics perpetuates the irrelevant distinction between growth and value investing . Earnings growth without an ROIC above the weighted average cost of capital ( WACC ) destroys value, and value without growth limits upside. While ROIC is, by far, the most important driver of value, it is not the only factor. One must also consider revenue growth and duration of profit growth, i.e. growth appreciation period ( GAP ). These three drivers comprise everything that defines the profitability and, therefore value, of a company. PE and PEG are driven by these drivers, not the other way around. The same concept applies to companies that grow EPS by deploying capital at suboptimal rates of return. As we discussed in ” The High-Low Fallacy “, an acquisition can be accretive to earnings but destructive to shareholder value. Recent Danger Zone pick Expedia (NASDAQ: EXPE ) has managed significant EPS growth through $3.2 billion in acquisitions, but these acquisitions have actually hurt the long-term interests of shareholders by earning an ROIC that falls short of WACC. For that reason, investors need to be looking at ROIC rather than EPS, and they need to recognize that a PE multiple tells you next to nothing about the actual value of a stock. Disclosure: David Trainer and Sam McBride receive no compensation to write about any specific stock, sector, style, or theme.

Can South Africa ETF Sustain Its Recent Rally?

The South African equity market has been on a roller coaster ride this month recording big, wild moves both ways. The market took a deep plunge after South Africa’s president Jacob Zuma replaced finance minister Nhlanhla Nene, after less than two years of his appointment, with law maker David Van Rooyen (who is relatively unfamiliar and unproven) on December 9. Per reports, Nene’s efforts to cut back spending was not agreed upon in the parliament. This political upheaval dragged down the South African currency to an all-time low and punished the stocks and bonds. Following the removal of Nene, Zuma faced a series of outrages and protests and cries for Zuma’s resignation were widespread. To contain the slide in the market and soothe political uproar, South Africa’s president Jacob Zuma immediately intervened and named well-regarded Pravin Gordhan as the new finance minister who has vowed to restrain the budget deficit and total public debt, Reuters . Market Impact Given the constructive changes in the finance ministry, the South Africa ETF – the iShares MSCI South Africa ETF (NYSEARCA: EZA ) – added about 8.9% on December 14. The ETF lost over 5.8% in the last five days and is off 28.4% in the year-to-date time frame (as of the same date). The ETF also hit a 52-week low on December 11 when shares of EZA were down roughly 42% from their 52-week high price of $73.08/share. Can the Uptrend Last? The fund has been massively beaten down this year by a flurry of issues. The looming Fed lift-off has already soured investors’ mood towards this emerging market. Moreover, South Africa is a commodity-rich nation. Since the greenback is soaring on an impending rate hike, commodity prices are falling fast as most of these are priced in U.S. dollars since one can buy the same quantity of any commodity by a few dollars now. Credit agency Fitch already cut South Africa’s rating on December 4 to barely one mark above the junk status and also added that the firing of Nene “raised more negative than positive questions.” Charts Give Bearish Cues EZA has a Zacks ETF Rank #4 (Sell) with a High risk outlook. For a technical look, the short-term moving average (9-day SMA) for EZA is well below the long-term averages (both 50-Day SMA and 200-Day SMA) signaling further downward movement. Also, EZA is currently trading way below the parabolic SAR indicating a bearish trend for the product. However, the only ray of hope is that the Relative Strength Index (RSI) is around 33.67, suggesting that the ETF is on the verge of entering the oversold territory and is thus due for a trend reversal. Still, for investors who believe that the recent rise in EZA will likely continue for quite some time, we have detailed the ETF below. After all investors should note that much of the Fed-induced blows are currently priced in the present EM valuations. Though emerging market investments will be edgy in 2016, repeated comments made by the Fed on a slow hike trajectory might not hit the EM bloc as badly as is being feared. Also, the fund (EZA) has just 5.3% exposure in materials and 6.7% in the energy sector, and should not be deeply affected by the slumping commodity market. EZA in Focus This ETF looks to track the MSCI South Africa Index. It has a major focus on large and mid-cap equities. The ETF invests about $283.2 million assets in 56 holdings. EZA carries high company-specific concentration risk, with Naspers Limited N Ltd ( OTCPK:NPSNY ) (23.87%), Sasol Ltd (NYSE: SSL ) (6.51%) and MTN Group Ltd ( OTCPK:MTNOY ) (6.28%) taking the top three spots of the basket. From a sector point of view, the fund is tilted towards consumer discretionary (35.7%) and financials (28.9%). The fund charges 62 bps as fees. Original Post