Tag Archives: send-xhr-start

SPY-TLT Universal Investment Strategy 20 Year Backtest

20 year strategy backtest using Vanguard VFINX/VUSTX index funds as a proxy for SPY/TLT. The strategy uses an adaptive SPY/TLT allocation, depending of the market environment. The strategy achieves 2x the return to risk ratio and a 5x smaller max drawdown than a buy and hold S&P 500 investment. In a previous article ” The SPY-TLT Universal Investment Strategy ” I presented a simple strategy which allowed to obtain an excellent return to risk ratio only by investing in variable allocations to the SPDR S&P 500 Trust ETF ( SPY) and the i Shares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: TLT ) allocations. The allocation of the SPY/TLT pair is rebalanced monthly using a modified sharpe formula. For the new month, the strategy always uses the allocation ratio which achieved the highest modified sharpe ratio for a given lookback period. Here the algorithm uses a 72 day lookback period and a volatility factor of 2.5 in the modified sharpe formula: sharpe=72 day return/72 day standard deviation ^ 2.5. Several readers asked me now to present a longer backtest of this strategy. Using the Vanguard Five Hundred Index Fund Inv ( VFINX) and the Vanguard Long Term Treasury Fund Inv (MUTF: VUSTX ) as a proxy to the SPY/TLT ETFs, here is now a 20 year backtest for the UIS strategy. These index funds are only used to do the 20 year backtest. To run the strategy you would still invest using SPY and TLT. You can also use futures (ES/UB) or leveraged ETFs ( Direxion Daily S&P 500 Bull 3X Shares ETF ( SPXL)/ Direxion Daily 30-Year Treasury Bull 3x Shares ETF ( TMF) or Direxion Daily S&P 500 Bear 3X Shares ETF ( SPXS)/ Direxion Daily 30-Year Treasury Bear 3x Shares ETF ( TMV)) instead. This is explained in detail in my previous article. With these two Vanguard funds, this is now one of the rare strategies which can be easily backtested for such a long period. In general however, I think that it is much more important, how a strategy performed after 2008. The market has changed considerably during these last years, and if you would only invest in strategies which can be backtested 20 or more years, then you would have missed most of the investment opportunities of the recent years. For the backtest, I use our QuantTrader software. This software is written in C# and allows to backtest and optimize investment strategies using this sharp maximizing approach. You see the screenshot of the results below. The upper chart shows the VFINX/VUSTX performance. The middle chart shows the allocation with red=treasury and yellow=S&P500. If you look at this allocation, then you see that the market is in fact oscillating between “risk on” bull stock markets and “risk off” bear stock markets (= bull treasury market). Overall, you can say that for buy and hold investors, treasuries have been the better investment for the last 20 years. The sharpe ratio (return to risk) of the VUSTX treasury is 0.79, while the sharpe of the VFINX S&P500 fund is only 0.5. With VFINX/VUSTX combined, the strategy achieves a sharpe of 1.28, which is more than double the return to risk ratio of a stock market investment. This means, that instead of investing 100’000$ in the U.S. stock market, using leverage, you could invest 250’000$ in the UIS strategy. This way you would have the same risk, but you would get 20%-30% annual return. The strategy shows a very smooth equity line and the real max drawdown is well below 10%. The 11.68% drawdown peak measured in 2008 was in fact only an extreme mean-reversion reaction following a near 20% treasury up spike. The max drawdown is more than 5x smaller than a buy-and-hold stock market investment. Personally I think, this is in fact the biggest argument for such a strategy. All together, we had several major market correction like the 2000 tech bubble dot-com crisis, the 2001 9/11 attack, the 2003 Gulf war, the 2008 subprime crisis, the 2011 European sovereign debt crisis and lots of other smaller corrections. The UIS strategy always performed very well during these corrections. From 1995 to 2007, the UIS strategy had quite a stable 12% annual return. After 2008, the UIS return increased to 15% annually. The main reason for this improvement is the increased volatility and momentum factors present in the market. After the 55% correction of the U.S. stock market in 2008, VFINX had a lot to recover the last years. In fact, the normal average growth rate of the S&P 500 is about 9% and not 15% like it was during the last 5 years. The UIS strategy “likes” market corrections from time to time, because then the strategy can profit during the down market from treasuries going up and when the market goes up again, then the strategy can profit a second time from a higher stock market allocation. This way, the strategy can return more than each of the two single ETFs. If you want to check the monthly investments of this strategy, then you can download here the full backtest Excel file: 20 year performance log UIS VFINX VUSTX (click to enlarge) Source: Logical-invest.com

The Time To Hedge Is Now! January 2015 Update

Summary Brief overview and links to earlier articles in the series. Why Buy-and-hold investors should consider hedging. Sell your January 2014 puts in Terex (TEX) before expiration this Friday and lock in profits. Improved buy prices on select candidates. Discussion of the risks inherent to this strategy versus not being hedged. Back to December Update – Part II 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 listed with links in this instablog . In the 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 do 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 above articles include varying views that I consider to be worthy of contemplation regarding possible triggers that could lead to another sizeable market correction. Part II of the December Update (linked at the top of this article) explains how I intend to roll my positions. I want to make it very clear that I am not predicting a market crash. Bear markets are a part of investing in equities, plain and simple. I 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 to those investments unless the fundamental reasons for which I bought them in the first place changes. Investing long term works! I just want to reduce the occasional pain inflicted by bear markets. Why Hedge? With the current bull market turning 70 months now, it is now more than double the average duration (30.7 months) of all bull markets since 1929. The current bull is now longer in duration than all but three bull markets during that time period (out of a total of 15). So, I am preparing for the inevitable next bear market. I do not know when the strategy will pay off, and I will be the first to admit that I am probably earlier than I suggested at the beginning of this series. However, I do feel confident that the probability of experiencing another major bear market will rise in the coming year(s). It may be 2015, 2016 or even 2017, before we take another hit like we did in 2000-2002 or 2008-09. But I am not willing to risk losing 50 percent (or more) of my portfolio to save the less than two percent per year cost of a rolling insurance hedge. I am convinced that the longer the duration of the bull market lasts the worse the resulting bear market will be. Sell TEX January 2015 puts now! I don’t like to hold short positions, especially on dividend paying stocks. Even though the dividend is tiny on TEX, I recommend selling the puts now. I sold two of my TEX put positions yesterday ($26 and $27 strikes) and am happy with my returns (680% and 809%, respectively). I also sold the last batch today ($23 strike) for a small profit. The bull market churned ever higher while we remained hedged and one of our candidates fell enough to help offset part of the cost of the hedge. I hope you held TEX puts in your hedge! Overall the hedge position (all 18 positions) lost money. All in all, because of the one good outcome my portfolio was hedged for most of last year for less than one percent. I estimate that this next year may cost over 1.5 percent of our total portfolio (I pay for mine by giving up a portion of my dividend income) if we buy all the puts today. However, there are some events coming up soon that could spur U.S. equities higher in the short term, depending on the outcomes. Pending Economic Events The biggest two events that are on the schedule, in my view are the European Central Bank [ECB] decision to increase quantitative easing coming on January 22 and the Greek election set for January 25, just three days later. I want to thank Mercy Jimenez for reminding me of these two important dates coming in the third week of this month. The ECB decision could provide a boost, if QE is initiated and is large enough to matter, to U.S. equities via the carry trade. Those with access to very low cost money in the Euro Zone will borrow cheaply there and reinvest where they expect high and safer returns; that would be the U.S as investors continue their flight to perceived safety). Both U.S. bonds and equities stand to benefit if the vote is positive. Currently, the plan does not seem settled as to the total amount of QE that the ECB will provide. Most recently I have read articles stating that 500 billion euros (just under $600 billion U.S.) is likely. However, a few days ago I read that the ECB was planning a one trillion euro (almost $1.2 trillion U.S.). I suspect the lower amount is more likely. On the other hand, if the measure does not pass, there could be a negative reaction as those who had positioned investments to take advantage of an expected run up would probably unwind those positions. The Greek election outcome appears to favor the Syriza party which is anti-bailout and wants to renegotiate the austerity terms required for more loans. If the Syriza party prevails and negotiations stall, it could bring the sovereign debt question in Europe back to the forefront. That could either hurt or help U.S. equities, depending upon how the outcome and its consequences are interpreted. If both votes go sour, then we want to be hedged because all bad news from Europe could cause enough fear in the global investors to go to cash. U.S. bonds would probably find support, but a risk off environment would likely result in a correction to equities. Being partially hedged at this point is a good bet. If the vote on QE by the ECB passes, we could get a good opportunity to buy more puts at lower premiums in the near future. Patience is the key. Current Premiums on select Candidates In this section I will provide current quotes and other data points on selected candidates that pose an improved entry point from the last update. All quotes and information are based upon the close on Wednesday, January 14, 2015. I am calculating the possible gain percentage, total estimated dollar amount of hedge protection (Tot Est. $ Hedge) and the percent cost of portfolio using the “Last Premium” amount shown. This was the last premium paid on the last transaction of the day and provides a more accurate example of the cost and potential for each trade. Please remember that all calculations of the percent cost of portfolio are based upon a $100,000 equity portfolio. If you have an equity portfolio of $400,000 you will need to increase the number of contracts by a factor of four. Also, the hedge amount provided is predicated upon a 30 percent drop in equities during an economic recession and owning eight hedge positions that provide protection that approximates $30,000 for each $100,000 of equities. So, you should pick eight candidates from the list and make sure that the hedge amounts total to about $30,000. Since each option represents 100 shares of the underlying stock, we cannot be extremely precise, but we can get very close. Another precaution: do not try to use this hedge strategy for the fixed income portion of your portfolio. If the total value of your portfolio is $400,000, but $100,000 of that is in bonds or preferred stocks, use this strategy to hedge against the remaining $300,000 of stocks held in the portfolio (assuming that is all that is left). This is also not meant to hedge against other assets such as real estate, collectibles or precious metals. Goodyear Tire & Rubber (NASDAQ: GT ) Current Price Target Price Strike Price Bid Premium Ask Premium Last Premium Poss. % Gain Tot Est. $ Hedge % Cost of Portfolio $25.43 $8.00 $15.00 $0.10 $0.65 $0.26 2592 $4,044 0.16% GT stock is actually slightly lower than it was at the time of the last update. But the potential gain is better if you can get in near the latest premium paid. Truck and SUV sales in the U.S. are improving due to lower gas prices, but sales of sedans and economy autos are dropping. Total sales for autos should be relatively flat with profits rising from a higher margin mix. But volume is likely to fall and that spells reduced sales for tire companies like GT. I don’t expect a major drop in share price without a recession, but we could see some gradual downside movement over the coming months. You will still need six January 2016 GT put option contract, but the cost drops significantly to cover one eighth of a $100,000 equity portfolio. Seagate Technology (NASDAQ: STX ) Current Price Target Price Strike Price Bid Premium Ask Premium Last Premium Poss. % Gain Tot Est. $ Hedge % Cost of Portfolio $64.59 $24.00 $45.00 $0.53 $0.57 $0.54 3789 $4,092 0.11% We will need a total of two June 2015 STX put options with a strike of $45 to complete this position at current pricing levels for each $100,000 in portfolio value. The actual last premium was listed as $0.47 which is below the bid premium. That is not likely to happen, so I split the difference between the bid and ask price to get $0.54 and used that for the calculations. The cost per month is considerably lower using June options than using January 2016 options. CarMax (NYSE: KMX ) Current Price Target Price Strike Price Bid Premium Ask Premium Last Premium Poss. % Gain Tot Est. $ Hedge % Cost of Portfolio $63.42 $16.00 $35.00 $0.45 $0.65 $0.60 3067 $3,680 0.12% We will need two January 2016 KMX put options with a strike of $35 to complete this position for each $100,000 in portfolio value. Royal Caribbean Cruises (NYSE: RCL ) Current Price Target Price Strike Price Bid Premium Ask Premium Last Premium Poss. % Gain Tot Est. $ Hedge % Cost of Portfolio $81.94 $22.00 $57.50 $0.85 $0.96 $0.91 3801 $3,459 0.09% We need only one June 2015 RCL put option contract to fill this position and protect against approximately $3,459 in loss on a $100,000 portfolio. United Continental Holdings (NYSE: UAL ) Current Price Target Price Strike Price Bid Premium Ask Premium Last Premium Poss. % Gain Tot Est. $ Hedge % Cost of Portfolio $64.05 $18.00 $35.00 $0.29 $0.64 $0.46 3596 $3,308 0.09% We need two June 2015 UAL put option contracts to fill this position and protect against approximately $3,308 in loss on a $100,000 portfolio. Currently the June contracts are more cost effective than the January 2015 contracts. L Brands (NYSE: LB ) Current Price Target Price Strike Price Bid Premium Ask Premium Last Premium Poss. % Gain Tot Est. $ Hedge % Cost of Portfolio $82.12 $20.00 $50.00 $0.80 $1.00 $0.85 3429 $5,830 0.17% We need two January 2016 LB put options to provide the indicated loss coverage for each $100,000 in portfolio value. Those of you who have been following the series will notice that I have increased the strike price from $40 to $50 here resulting in a significant rise in the amount hedged. Marriott International (NASDAQ: MAR ) Current Price Target Price Strike Price Bid Premium Ask Premium Last Premium Poss. % Gain Tot Est. $ Hedge % Cost of Portfolio $76.57 $30.00 $50.00 $1.00 $1.20 $0.95 1718 $3,780 0.22% We need two January 2016 MAR put option contracts to provide the indicated loss coverage for each $100,000 in portfolio value. Since the last premium was below the bid I chose to split the difference between the bid and ask premium and used $1.10 as the premium for the calculations. Micron Technology (NASDAQ: MU ) Current Price Target Price Strike Price Bid Premium Ask Premium Last Premium Poss. % Gain Tot Est. $ Hedge % Cost of Portfolio $30.05 $10.00 $17.00 $0.53 $0.59 $0.55 1173 $3,870 0.33%                   We need six January 2016 MU put option contracts to provide the indicated loss coverage for each $100,000 in portfolio value. The cost of these contracts is coming down slowly because the stock price has fallen since the last update. I will probably not add much, if any, of this candidate to my hedge unless I can get a better premium in the future Williams-Sonoma (NYSE: WSM ) Current Price Target Price Strike Price Bid Premium Ask Premium Last Premium Poss. % Gain Tot Est. $ Hedge % Cost of Portfolio $76.99 $20.00 $55.00 $1.40 $1.90 $1.43 2348 $3,357 0.14% We need only one January 2016 WSM put option contract to provide the indicated loss coverage for each $100,000 in portfolio value. In the last update article I used May options. Since then the pricing in the January contracts has become more favorable. Level 3 Communications (NYSE: LVLT ) Current Price Target Price Strike Price Bid Premium Ask Premium Last Premium Poss. % Gain Tot Est. $ Hedge % Cost of Portfolio $47.88 $15.00 $40.00 $1.15 $1.35 $1.20 1983 $4,760 0.24% The position shown above would require two June 2015 LVLT put option contracts to provide the indicated loss coverage for each $100,000 in portfolio value. Remember that these options expire in June 2015 and will require us to replace them at additional cost. Even though the cost has come down by almost a third, I do not intend to add LVLT contracts at this time. I will wait for better pricing or use another candidate for my hedge. Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS ) and Sotheby’s (NYSE: BID ) option costs are still too high to be considered at this time. I plan to wait for better entry points before adding to my hedge position with these candidates. Summary My top eight choices from the list above includes LB, KMX, GT, WSM, MAR, RCL, STX and UAL. That group (using the put option contracts suggested above) should provide approximately $31,550 in downside protection against a 30 percent market correction at a cost of 1.1 percent of a $100,000 portfolio. Granted, four of the candidates will need to be replaced by May or June which will add to the total cost, but we should still be able to keep the total hedge cost below two percent for the year. Brief Discussion of Risks 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. 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 will be additional costs involved, so I try to hold down costs for each round that is necessary. I do not expect to need to roll positions more than once, if that, before we see the benefit of this strategy work. I want to discuss risk for a moment now. Obviously, if the market continues higher beyond January 2016 all of our new option contracts could expire worthless. I have never found insurance offered for free. We could lose all of our initial premiums paid plus commissions. 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. And if that happens, I will initiate another round of put options for expiration beyond January 2016, using from up to three percent of my portfolio to hedge for another year. The longer the bull maintains control of the market the more the insurance will 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 three 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 five 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 three 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, I expect a much less powerful bear market if one begins early in 2015; but if the bull can sustain itself into late 2015 or beyond, I would expect the next bear market to be more like the last two. 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. Additional disclosure: I hold put option positions in each of the stocks listed in the article.

An ETF For European QE

Summary European QE appears likely at the next meeting. In order to overcome German opposition, the QE program may favor northern European bonds and stocks more than anticipated. The bear market in the euro will continue in the wake of QE. Back in December, ECB President Mario Draghi said consensus wasn’t needed for a QE program. The stumbling block in Europe has been several hard money nations led by Germany . These are the countries often lumped together as part of a northern euro block, such as Holland, Austria and Finland, who prefer a strong euro to a weak one. On the other side are the Greeks, Italians, Spanish and French who would do better with a weaker euro. Global investors are giving the south of Europe its wish by selling the euro, but a QE program would be a big help to nations struggling with unsustainable sovereign debts. If a QE program is launched, it will be good news for European equities, and due to the need to overcome German-led opposition, may benefit the north much more than expected. Will There Be European QE? The impetus for a QE policy in Europe is the persistently low inflation on the continent. Falling oil prices knocked consumer inflation below zero in December, which is generally a good thing for the economy, but in the bizarro world of heavily indebted nations, is a scary prospect. Since debt continues to pile up, a rise in purchasing power means the outstanding debt grows in real terms even with no new borrowing. With even the efficient German economy looking at 1 percent GDP growth in 2015, there is a desire for higher inflation and higher nominal growth rates in Europe. To satisfy the demand, the ECB may try an asset purchase program and it has room to expand its balance sheet : … the central bank can still ease policy by expanding the size of its own balance-sheet, which it intends returning to the high of €3 trillion ($3.7 trillion) that it reached in early 2012. That amounts to an extra €1 trillion, though no date has been specified for accomplishing the increase. The previous peak occurred as the ECB averted a funding crisis for banks by providing them with €1 trillion in three-year loans in the winter of 2011-12. Since then its balance-sheet has been waning as banks in northern Europe repaid the money early. One issue the ECB faces is that there is no “European” bond. In order to do QE, it must buy the bonds of member states, but how does it do this fairly? One rumored method is to use the national central bank’s contributions to the ECB, which would mean German bonds would receive the biggest dose of QE money (though not necessarily the biggest dose relative to GDP or outstanding debt). German bonds are already expensive. The yield on 10-year German bonds is below 0.5 percent in part due to low inflation, but also due to investors worried about a breakup in the euro and attracted to northern Europe’s ability to repay its debts. Were the eurozone to break apart, the northern European currencies (or a northern euro) would appreciate in value, while the southern European currencies (or southern euro) would depreciate in value. The German bonds could also be trading down on the anticipation of European quantitative easing. Whatever the reason, investors clearly favor the north over the south and they do so even with rumored QE on the way. As German bond yields fall faster than southern European bond yields, it raises the question of where QE money will go. If the bonds aren’t falling as a result of fears of a possible breakup or Grexit, and QE money is doled out based on contributions, it could mean the bulk of QE money will not make it to southern Europe and instead flow into the assets preferred by investors holding German bonds. Southern Europe will benefit from QE, but the biggest winners might be northern European equity and bond markets. An Important Week For the European Markets The ECB meets on January 22 and three days later, the Greeks vote. Whatever happens, one of the least likely outcomes is business as usual: no QE and a win for the Greek political establishment. A QE policy would smooth financial market concerns ahead of a Greek vote (if they think it helps Syriza, will they delay QE?), and if QE is initiated, it is likely to favor the nations that need it least. The unpredictable Greek election is a major short-term risk for the euro. Although Syriza has maintained a small lead in the polls, the follow on results are unpredictable because party leader Alexis Tsipras’ rhetoric may not match his actions, and the response of the troika is unknown. Adding to the lack of clarity, German officials leaked their opinion that a Greek exit from the euro isn’t the end of the world. ETF Strategy After breaking below the 2010 lows set at the depths of the first Greek sovereign debt crisis, the euro is in a clear bear market with parity looming in the not too distant future. QE or no QE, fundamentals are moving in favor of the dollar and against the euro, with faster GDP growth and higher interest rates as two of the main positives for the greenback. One way to bet against a weak euro is via ETFs such as the PowerShares DB USD Bull ETF (NYSEARCA: UUP ) or the ProShares UltraShort Euro ETF (NYSEARCA: EUO ). While the announcement of a European QE program may be short-term bullish for the euro because traders may “buy the news,” equities have been weak due to the looming Greek election. A QE policy would be net positive for equities because it would increase confidence in the market. While it could lag in the short-term from a euro bounce, the WisdomTree Europe Hedged Equity ETF (NYSEARCA: HEDJ ) is the best option for a bull market in European stocks and a bear market in the euro. Index & Strategy HEDJ has tracked the WisdomTree Europe Hedged Equity Index since August 29, 2012. The main attraction of HEDJ is the currency hedge. An investor in HEDJ receives only the nominal change in the euro denominated value of the stocks. This doesn’t eliminate currency risk; it shifts it. When the euro is weak, HEDJ will beat an unhedged European equity fund, but when the euro is strong, HEDJ will under perform an unhedged European equity fund. The index takes the currency approach a step further though. Here’s an important part of the index description : The Index is based on dividend paying companies in the WisdomTree DEFA Index that are domiciled in Europe and are traded in Euros, have at least $1 billion market capitalization, and derive at least 50% of their revenue in the latest fiscal year from countries outside of Europe . Not only does HEDJ hedge away euro risk, it also holds stocks in companies most likely to benefit from a weaker euro because they export or have extensive multinational operations. We can see how this changes the portfolio by comparing HEDJ to an unhedged eurozone fund, the i Shares MSCI EMU ETF (NYSEARCA: EZU ). Here’s the country exposure for each fund, based on data from the fund providers’ websites as of January 12. The EZU numbers do not add to 100 percent because EZU lists “Other” at 1.30 percent of assets. Both ETFs have heavy exposure in the larger economies of France and Germany, but HEDJ is more balanced in its approach. Sector exposure is another story. HEDJ has about 12 percentage points less in financial than EZU. Financials are more closely tied to the domestic economy and some fall afoul of HEDJ’s rule for owning companies with non-European sourced revenue. That rule also causes the fund to be underweight utilities and energy relative to EZU. HEDJ is overweight the consumer staples, industrial and consumer discretionary sectors, which are represented in the portfolio by major multinational firms such as Anheuser-Busch InBev (NYSE: BUD ), Unilever (NYSE: UL ) and L’Oreal ( OTCPK:LRLCY ). Although financials may be among the beneficiaries of a QE program, HEDJ’s exposure to multinationals is attractive because Europe’s economic prospects aren’t great. Even with QE, the eurozone will be lucky to generate low inflation and growth. The story here is that equity valuations will rise due to liquidity added to the market and increased confidence generated by the central bank’s actions. Unlike the U.S., a breakup of the currency union is a low probability, but high cost event that weighs on European equities whenever fear of a potential breakup spikes. Performance This first chart is a price ratio of HEDJ to EZU. A rising line shows the outperformance of HEDJ. The black line is the EUR/USD exchange rate. This shows changes in the exchange rate, explain the direction of relative performance. HEDJ leads when the euro falls. (click to enlarge) The return chart below shows that the different sector exposure has caused total returns to fluctuate more than by the exchange rate. Since inception as the Europe hedged fund in August 2012 through January 12, HEDJ is beating EZU by more than 10 percent, but the euro is down less than 6 percent over this period. Back in May 2014, EZU was beating HEDJ by about 17 percent since inception, but the euro was only up 10 percent. This behavior is consistent with HEDJ’s index rule on non-European revenues. (click to enlarge) Expenses HEDJ charges 0.58 percent versus 0.48 percent for EZU, a small increase for adding the currency hedging. Risk & Reward This decision tree shows which exposure makes the most sense for different currency and equity situations. Active investors bullish on European equities and bearish on the euro should opt for a fund such as HEDJ. Those investors also bullish on the euro should stick with an unhedged ETF such as EZU. For investors bearish on stocks, but bullish on the euro, holding a currency fund such as the CurrencyShares Euro Trust ETF (NYSEARCA: FXE ) or a bond fund holding euro-denominated bonds is the best option. For those bearish on both stocks and the euro, holding a currency short fund such as EUO is an option, but for many investors, simply avoiding Europe altogether is the best option. (click to enlarge) Conclusion A European QE program will be bullish for European equities, but equities face a major risk from the Greek election. Odds are Europe will choose the easier path of accommodating a political shift in Greece, but there’s a small chance that either Greece or the troika scuttle the bailout agreements. Assuming the extreme path is avoided though, confidence will recover once the Greek election is over and a QE program will further increase it. Meanwhile, QE will be bearish for the euro over the intermediate to long-term. HEDJ is perfectly situated to benefit in an environment of a weak euro and rising European equities.