Tag Archives: yahoo

DLN: A Perfectly Adequate Dividend ETF

Summary DLN offers a dividend yield of 2.74%. It’s acceptable, but nothing to write home about. The top several holdings are a mix of established dividend champions, except for the allocation to Apple which is really hanging on the company paying out their cash. The ETF has a moderate expense ratio, but there are so many options I’ve seen lately with ratios that are excellent. I’d really prefer to see consumer staples as an overweight allocation or a higher allocation to utilities. The WisdomTree Largecap Dividend ETF (NYSEARCA: DLN ) looks quite adequate. Ironically, there seems to be no better way to sum up the fund in a single sentence. Expenses The expense ratio is a .28%. When it comes to investing, who wants to throw away their capital on high expenses ratios or trading costs? This is fairly middle of the road for expense ratios in my estimation, but there have been quite a few funds coming up lately with expense rates that are downright excellent. Dividend Yield The dividend yield is currently running 2.74%. That isn’t too bad if the universe of comparable securities is all ETFs, but as far as dividend ETFs go this is running a bit low. Based on current valuations throughout the industry I would expect to see dividend ETFs running closer to 2.9% with some high yield dividend ETFs exceeding 3.5%. Holdings I put grabbed the following chart to demonstrate the weight of the top 10 holdings: (click to enlarge) Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL ) being the top holding makes sense for an ETF that wants to more closely track the market since Apple is such a large part of the market. They certainly have the cash to pay out great dividends but a yield below 2% doesn’t seem like a great fit for the top holding in a dividend ETF. I love seeing Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM ) as a top holding. Investors may be concerned about cheap gas being here to stay, but I think money in politics will be around decades (centuries?) longer than cheap gas. Bet against big oil at your own peril. I can say the same about liking Chevron (NYSE: CVX ) as a top holding. These companies offer investors a good way to benefit from high as prices which would generally be a drag on the rest of the economy and on their personal expenditures. Seeing AT&T (NYSE: T ) and Verizon (NYSE: VZ ) with heavy weights is one area where I tend to feel conflicted. The dividend yields are great but the sector is becoming more competitive. On the upside any technology that actually makes them obsolete or at least incapable of growing earnings would be indicative of the investor having a lower cell phone bill, so there is another benefit to aligning the portfolio to match an investor’s individual expenditures. Honestly, is there any better way to pay your phone bill than with a dividend check from the phone company? This is a difficult one to come down on because I love the strategy of covering a cost with dividend income from the company, but I’m also concerned that Sprint (NYSE: S ) is offering a very viable competitive product. Their reception may be terrible in some cities, but they are great in Colorado Springs. Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ ) is another great dividend company to hold. They have an effective R&D team and a global market presence. Sectors (click to enlarge) The sector composition is fairly balanced. On one hand, a balanced portfolio seems positive. However, I think it comes down to the individual investor. I have more risk tolerance than many investors because I have a fairly long time to recover from negative events, but my portfolio is also missing traditional bond exposure so I tend to prefer the less risky equity allocations. That puts me in a position to favor consumer staples, equity REITs, energy (only in the context of large companies like XOM), and utilities. Occasionally equity REITs are included in the “financials” category, but I’d rather get my REIT exposure through a separate ETF because I want to shove all my REITs into tax advantaged accounts. Therefore, I tend to use large equity REIT allocations in those accounts and would prefer a dividend champion ETF to be underweight on equity REITs. When “financials” simply means banks, then I prefer to see the allocation limited to around 10 to 15% of the portfolio. This allocation is reasonable as a balanced portfolio, but I would really rather see information technology swapping place with utilities and wouldn’t mind seeing financials trade place with either health care or energy. I think those areas offer investors a safer income stream as it relates to the expenses they will face in their life. What to Add Clearly my first area to increase the allocations would be utilities or consumer staples. The utilities offer investors a solid dividend yield while being moderately correlated with interest rates which allows them to serve a purpose that is somewhat similar to bonds in the portfolio while still having the dividend income grow over time. The consumer staples allocation is already almost 15%, but I’d rather see it running closer to 20%. For my risk tolerance, I wouldn’t mind seeing it be even more overweight. Conclusion This is a fairly interesting fund in that it doesn’t stand out from the crowd, but it also doesn’t make have any glaring problems. Overall, I’d have to say that it is perfectly adequate but nothing that really gets me excited. This seems to be a dividend growth fund that just tries to remain reasonable. That makes it an acceptable investment for many investors but it doesn’t stand out as being anything great for my desired allocations.

If You Like Inner Beauty, This Is Your Dividend ETF

Summary DVY offers a solid dividend yield of 3.27%, but the real beauty goes much deeper. The holdings in the top 10 look excellent and reflect a great portfolio. The sector allocations are even better and include high allocations to sectors that are often ignored in high dividend yield ETFs. The iShares Select Dividend ETF (NYSEARCA: DVY ) looks great. After readers suggested I take a look at the portfolio, I decided it was time to dive inside and see what I could find. This is a great ETF. Investors may quibble on whether the allocations are perfect or merely good, but there is far more to like than to hold against the fund. Expense Ratio The expense ratio is .39%. That is by far the biggest challenge for the fund because the rest of the fund is simply great. Holdings Investors should always look to the holdings as part of the process in making the decisions. Who doesn’t like this allocation? We have Philip Morris International (NYSE: PM ) at the number 2 slot. That looks like a good dividend bet to me. I’m not a fan of their products, but I am I fan of the revenue and earnings they can generate with those products. That can be a tricky situation, but in the investment mindset I just can’t toss away the opportunity to have companies with highly addictive products. We see McDonald’s (NYSE: MCD ) at the number 4 slot. The case for McDonald’s is fairly similar. I don’t love the product that they were creating over the last several years, but I do love the way the restaurant leverages their real estate and enormous size to generate great economies of scale. We also have Kimberly Clark Corp (NYSE: KMB ) and Clorox (NYSE: CLX ) in the top ten. While I don’t cover these companies on an individual basis, it is encouraging to see three entries for consumer staples in the top holdings of the ETF. You look a little further down the list and you see Nextera Energy Inc. (NYSE: NEE ) leading a batch of three utilities. For comparison sake, I’ve often looked into defensive ETFs or high dividend yield ETFs and seen utilities only composing 0% to 5% of the portfolio. Since I like dividend ETFs to be stuffed with companies that can sell their product regardless of the economic environment, the utility sector is a great fit. Sector Allocations The next chart breaks down the sector allocations across the entire ETF and the choices are beautiful. I looked at this chart and knew I was going to like the ETF right away. Assuming proper diversification across individual companies, this is just a wonderful sector allocation. The utility sector comes in very heavy at 33% of the portfolio which is great for investors that care about getting strong sustainable dividends. I assume that is the only reason anyone is interested in this ETF. The dividend yield is currently running 3.27% and I’d be fairly confident in that dividend being maintained and growing over time. Consumer Staples Besides utilities, I’m very fond of the consumer staples sector since these are companies that are designed to whether the downturn in the economy. The products they sell can hold up remarkably well during down economies and it is the presence of reliable sales that helps a company survive the hard times. Between the consumer staples and utilities sector we have almost 45% of the portfolio. Information Technology This is a really shocking one for me. The allocation here is only 1.51%. For many dividend focused ETFs an allocation that larger or larger is given to Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT ) alone. On the other hand, MSFT currently only yields around 2.67% so I can see the smaller allocations. Broad market ETFs tend to be fairly heavy on information technology, so I’m just fine with seeing a lower weight for a dividend focused ETF. Investors using the iShares Select Dividend ETF as one part of their portfolio should be able to benefit from the diversification advantages of the different sector weights. What to Add I don’t like to be heavily overweight on information technology, but if an investor is using this as the core of the portfolio then I think it would be wise to use a small allocation to a broad market ETF or a very small allocation specifically to the information technology sector. The other place that I would consider adding a bit is the health care industry. There is plenty of demand for their goods and services from the baby boomer population. If an investor happens to be a baby boomer and plan to retire on the dividends, it would be nice to own part of the company that makes the medication they will want. If prices go up and profits soar, those investors should see higher dividends to offset the higher costs they are facing in their daily lives. I wouldn’t mind adding a little bit more exposure on consumer staples either, but that can be considered a personal preference thing. I would love to see this allocation running closer to 20% which would lead to utilities and consumer staples exceeding 50% of the portfolio when combined. That sounds like a nice secure dividend to me. Conclusion The expense ratio is a bit high for my taste, but the portfolio is beautiful. From the individual companies selected to the sector allocations, there is far more to like about this portfolio than to dislike. I think some investors putting in new money might seek ways to replicate the portfolio through a combination of lower fee ETFs, but it is a testament to the design of the ETF that it would be worth looking into those strategies. If the expense ratio dropped down to around .10% to .14%, it would come in as a solid 10/10.

Investing In Airlines Without Nosediving

Summary Two alternatives for airline investors are to pick individual airline stocks or to purchase shares of an airline industry ETF. The ETF ameliorates stock-specific risk via diversification, but allocates only small amounts to some of the most promising stocks. We present a 3rd alternative: using the hedged portfolio method to create a concentrated portfolio of top airline stocks that strictly limits stock-specific as well as other kinds of risk. A Third Way Between JETS and Individual Airline Stocks The worst sort of business is one that grows rapidly, requires significant capital to engender the growth, and then earns little or no money. Think airlines. Here a durable competitive advantage has proven elusive ever since the days of the Wright Brothers. Indeed, if a farsighted capitalist had been present at Kitty Hawk, he would have done his successors a huge favor by shooting Orville down. –Warren Buffett It’s customary to quote Warren Buffett’s bearishness on the industry when writing about airline stocks, and the Buffett quote above, from the 2007 Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.B ) shareholder letter , is my favorite. Seeking Alpha contributor Harm Elderman chose another good one in his recent article on the US Global Jets ETF (NYSEARCA: JETS ) (“Time To Re-Examine JETS: The Airline ETF”). Elderman’s article is worth reading in full, but this graphic he included does a great job of laying out the way the JETS ETF is diversified. That diversification, as Elderman notes, offers an interesting tradeoff. Elderman points out that, due to the way JETS is structured, particularly in the second point in the graphic above, his top airline pick at midyear, Hawaiian Holdings (NASDAQ: HA ), as a second-tier domestic airline, only gets a 4% allocation in the ETF. So a JETS investor would have gotten relatively little benefit from HA’s 35% year-to-date performance. On the other hand, had HA done as poorly as another airline mentioned in Elderman’s article, Avianca Holdings (NYSE: AVH ), which is down nearly 67% year-to-date, its impact on JETS’ performance would have been similarly limited. Nevertheless, as Elderman points out, JETS has outperformed the SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF (NYSEARCA: DIA ) year to date, up 6.13%, as of Tuesday’s close, versus DIA, which was down 1.24% over the same time frame, so it may be worthy of consideration for investors looking for exposure to the airline industry without incurring the risk of picking a handful of airline stocks on their own. In this article, though, we’ll look at a third way of investing in airline stocks, one that can give us bigger exposure to stocks like HA, but with less risk than owning the ETF. When Stocks Can Be Safer Than An ETF It may seem counterintuitive that owning a handful of airline stocks could be safer than owning an ETF that holds dozens of them, but that can be the case when you hold those stocks within a hedged portfolio. Although JETS ameliorates stock-specific risk via diversification, it’s still subject to industry risk and systemic, or market risk. You can strictly limit your potential downside due to any of those risks with the hedged portfolio method . Below, we’ll show how to use that method to construct a concentrated portfolio of airline stocks using JETS’ top holdings as a starting point, for an investor who is unwilling to risk a drawdown of more than 20%, and has $500,000 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) – the higher his potential return will be. So, we should expect that an investor who is willing to risk a 30% decline will have a chance at higher potential returns than one who is only willing to risk a 10% drawdown. In our example, we’ll be splitting the difference and using a 20% threshold (less than a third of the drop AVH shareholders have experienced so far this year). Constructing A Hedged Portfolio We’ll recap the hedged portfolio method here briefly, and then explain how you can implement it yourself using JETS’ top holdings as a starting point. 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 relatively high potential returns. 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 two-fold: If you are successful at the first step (finding securities with high potential returns), and you hold a concentrated portfolio of them, your portfolio 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 If we were looking for securities with the highest potential returns, we wouldn’t limit ourselves to airline industry stocks; instead, we’d consider a much broader universe of stocks. But since we’re concerned with airline stocks here, we’ll start with the top holdings of JETS. To quantify potential returns for JETS’ top holdings, you can sign up for Harm Elderman’s premium research via Seeking Alpha’s Marketplace. Alternatively, if you are impecunious and willing to put yourself at the mercy of Wall Street’s sell side analysts, you can use their consensus price targets as a starting point for your estimates, adjusting it based on the time frame you’re using and whether you think it is overly optimistic or not. For example, via Nasdaq, here is the analysts’ 12-month consensus price target for Hawaiian Airlines: 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 expected returns. Our method starts with calculations of six-month expected returns. Finding inexpensive ways to hedge these securities Our method attempts to find optimal static hedges using collars as well as protective puts going out approximately six months. Whatever hedging method you use, for this example, you’d want to make sure that each security is hedged against a greater-than-20% decline over the time frame covered by your potential return calculations. And you’ll need to calculate your cost of hedging as a percentage of position value. Select the securities with highest 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; you can do the same here, starting with the top holdings in JETS, but, in any case, you’ll at least want to exclude any of them 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 1.93x higher. In this case, the net potential returns were > 1.93x higher when hedged with optimal collars in each case. Here’s a closer look at the optimal collar edge on HA: This optimal collar is capped at 12.06% because that’s the potential return the site calculated for HA. The idea is to have a shot at capturing that, while offsetting the cost of hedging by selling someone else the right to buy HA if it goes higher than the site expects it to. As you can see at the bottom of the image above, the cost of the put protection on HA was $3,420, or 5.41% as a percentage of position value. However, if you look at the image below, you’ll see that the income from selling the call leg of this collar was $2,610, or 4.13% as a percentage of position value. So the net cost of the collar was $810, or 1.28%.[i] Note that, although the cost of this hedge was positive, the overall cost of hedging the portfolio was negative . Possibly More Protection Than Promised In some cases, hedges such as the ones in the portfolio above can provide more protection than promised. For an example of that, see what happened to a hedge on Sketchers (NYSE: SKX ) after that stock plummeted 31%. [i] To be conservative, this optimal collar shows the puts being purchased at their ask price, and the calls being sold at their bid price. In practice, an investor can often buy the puts for less (i.e., at some point between the bid and ask prices) and sell the calls for more (again, at some point between the bid and ask). So the actual cost of opening this collar would have likely been less. The same is true of the other hedges in the portfolio, the costs of which were calculated in the same conservative manner.