-
The Forum works well on MOBILE devices without an app: Just go to: https://forum.tsptalk.com
-
Please read our AutoTracker policy on the IFT deadline and remaining active. Thanks!
-
$ - Premium Service Content (Info) | AutoTracker Monthly Winners | Is Gmail et al, Blocking Our emails?
Find us on: Facebook & X | Posting Copyrighted Material
-
Join the TSP Talk AutoTracker: How to Get Started | Login | Main AutoTracker Page
-
The Forum works well on MOBILE devices without an app: Just go to: https://forum.tsptalk.com ...
Or you can now use TapaTalk again!
ETF's
- Thread starter Spaf
- Start date
GGal
Active member
HQL - to James
http://www.hqcm.com/Reports/HQL/hqla06.pdf
Link to HQL's latest annual report filed with SEC.
What I'm seeing is potential. Since this is a managed fund, I don't think the term "negative growth" should be used or viewed in the same context that we would use that term as related to a Home Depot or a Walmart, etc..
The volatility of the biotech market sector this year is what caused the decline in NAV. But, that can and will change.
It's not the same thing as saying Home Depot (or whatever) had a 25% negative growth rate because they closed x number of stores or lost x number of accounts..
GA
http://www.hqcm.com/Reports/HQL/hqla06.pdf
Link to HQL's latest annual report filed with SEC.
What I'm seeing is potential. Since this is a managed fund, I don't think the term "negative growth" should be used or viewed in the same context that we would use that term as related to a Home Depot or a Walmart, etc..
The volatility of the biotech market sector this year is what caused the decline in NAV. But, that can and will change.
It's not the same thing as saying Home Depot (or whatever) had a 25% negative growth rate because they closed x number of stores or lost x number of accounts..
GA
James48843
Well-known member
Thanks for the link to the annual report. That's an interesting read.
What I take from it is what I see as a pretty high fee ratio for the returns they are getting. They are charging 1.75% in asset management fees. Pretty steep, if you ask me. You mention the volitility in the sector- the annnual report icks out that as a factor, but I also see not just one year but all five years as a pretty questionable return. For those kind of consulting fees, one might expect to see some better performance.
But I understand your interest in the sector. Nice place to look around for the future. I'll keep my eye on it.
Thanks for the read. Good luck. Hope it works out for you.
J
What I take from it is what I see as a pretty high fee ratio for the returns they are getting. They are charging 1.75% in asset management fees. Pretty steep, if you ask me. You mention the volitility in the sector- the annnual report icks out that as a factor, but I also see not just one year but all five years as a pretty questionable return. For those kind of consulting fees, one might expect to see some better performance.
But I understand your interest in the sector. Nice place to look around for the future. I'll keep my eye on it.
Thanks for the read. Good luck. Hope it works out for you.
J
Bullitt
Well-known member
According to the WSJ...
2/3 of people who are worth $500K-$1Million invest in ETFs and more than half invest in Mutual Funds.
On the other hand, 76% of the ultra rich (>$20mil) choose to invest in Hedge Funds and 35% choose startup companies. Allegedy only 1% of this category directly invests in ETF's/Mutual Funds.
I think this is deceiving though because alot of that money flowing into Hedge Funds gets invested into ETF's. It makes sense to give money to a hedge fund because I couldn't imagine trying to personally invest $20 million in the market. I don't understand what is wrong with a mutual fund though even if you have that kind of money though. I guess it all comes down to wanting to drive a Porsche or Ford.
My one gripe about ETFs is this that they all proclaim to have low fees. At the end of the day price is all that matters. If a Fund returns 18% YTD and has a 1.5% 12-b fee attached to it, who cares. You still made 18%!!! It's not like the Fund says 'ok you made $2000 this year but we're taking 1.5% from that.' It's already factored into the NAV. If you want to mimic an index, then buy an index mutual fund so you can DCA and not worry about getting blasted by commissions with your contributions. I don't think the big companies want the retail investor to know this because then they would lose money in commissions.
I think ETFs are good but not great. Like anything else there are winners and losers. They are best for riding a high flying sector or dropping a lump of cash down all at once. For example, the FXI would be a great wave rider but not a long term investmet. DVY would be a great ETF to drop a lump sum on and watch grow.
ETF's are a relatively new phenomenon and I wouldn't be surprised to see a few founder in the years ahead.
2/3 of people who are worth $500K-$1Million invest in ETFs and more than half invest in Mutual Funds.
On the other hand, 76% of the ultra rich (>$20mil) choose to invest in Hedge Funds and 35% choose startup companies. Allegedy only 1% of this category directly invests in ETF's/Mutual Funds.
I think this is deceiving though because alot of that money flowing into Hedge Funds gets invested into ETF's. It makes sense to give money to a hedge fund because I couldn't imagine trying to personally invest $20 million in the market. I don't understand what is wrong with a mutual fund though even if you have that kind of money though. I guess it all comes down to wanting to drive a Porsche or Ford.
My one gripe about ETFs is this that they all proclaim to have low fees. At the end of the day price is all that matters. If a Fund returns 18% YTD and has a 1.5% 12-b fee attached to it, who cares. You still made 18%!!! It's not like the Fund says 'ok you made $2000 this year but we're taking 1.5% from that.' It's already factored into the NAV. If you want to mimic an index, then buy an index mutual fund so you can DCA and not worry about getting blasted by commissions with your contributions. I don't think the big companies want the retail investor to know this because then they would lose money in commissions.
I think ETFs are good but not great. Like anything else there are winners and losers. They are best for riding a high flying sector or dropping a lump of cash down all at once. For example, the FXI would be a great wave rider but not a long term investmet. DVY would be a great ETF to drop a lump sum on and watch grow.
ETF's are a relatively new phenomenon and I wouldn't be surprised to see a few founder in the years ahead.
James48843
Well-known member
Interesting way to play here:
If you are into China, you know about the EFT called "FXI", which is the Shanghai index ETF. It peaked back in October.
In the flip side, you can make money on Shanghai going down- by using this EFT: FXP.
FXP is an inverse ETF- if the index goes down, the value of FXP goes up by twice as much.
If you are into China, you know about the EFT called "FXI", which is the Shanghai index ETF. It peaked back in October.
In the flip side, you can make money on Shanghai going down- by using this EFT: FXP.
FXP is an inverse ETF- if the index goes down, the value of FXP goes up by twice as much.
James48843
Well-known member
Hey Spaf- you wanna take a crack at answering this question about ETF's?
I had someone ask it in another forum- I haven't had time to mull over a good response yet, but I'll through it out here, and let you, or anyone esle who wants to pitch in a thought- to try and answer the question below:
**************************************
Originally Posted by RPM
James:
Do you know why there is such difference between $SPX and SPY on the P&F charts? TIA
You ask an interesting question.
I'll try and write something up in answer, and post it tonight in this thread:
http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?t=3493
The sum of your question comes down to "Why don't ETF's perform exactly in line with the indexes they are supposed to represent?"
And that answer will take more than I can do here.
*********************************************
Thanks in advance- gotta go.
I had someone ask it in another forum- I haven't had time to mull over a good response yet, but I'll through it out here, and let you, or anyone esle who wants to pitch in a thought- to try and answer the question below:
**************************************
Originally Posted by RPM
James:
Do you know why there is such difference between $SPX and SPY on the P&F charts? TIA
You ask an interesting question.
I'll try and write something up in answer, and post it tonight in this thread:
http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?t=3493
The sum of your question comes down to "Why don't ETF's perform exactly in line with the indexes they are supposed to represent?"
And that answer will take more than I can do here.
*********************************************
Thanks in advance- gotta go.
Bullitt
Well-known member
Someone else may want to delve into this futher because I only know about a few spokes on this wheel but here goes. Two main reasons.
1. Fees, Fees, Fees, Fees, Fees. Even the most efficient ETF's have some kind of fee involved. SPY is probably one of the most efficient.
2. An ETF is a sample of the Index it attempts to represent. For example, the S&P 500 contains 500 companies but the SPY contains probably only about 100. The manager attempts to equally weight the ETF holdings to correlate with movements in the actual index. This is not always possible and may result in discrepancies with the actual index.
Don't get too excited about trying to capitalize on a discrepency in the actual NAV of an ETF vs it's current bid/ask. There are hundreds of Sharks in the Hedge Fund industry that make their money arbitraging ETF's in the same way that they arbitrage the Futures/Spot price/Index markets. In an ETF like SPY, the discrepancy between NAV and latest trading price might be ~.01% if you're lucky. When you're playing with millions of $$$ though, nickel dime trades over time do accumulate. If a shark sees that the SPY is trading below what they perceive to be it's NAV based on the current prices of it's holdings, they flood the system with buy orders. When it's trading above it's NAV, they flood it with sell orders. A constant tug-o-war amongst the big boys. Impossible for us Plebes to attempt as this is what's called Program Trading.
Example of how difficult is to arbitrage a highly liquid ETF: On 4/9/08 SPY had a NAV of 135.36 according to Yahoo. The closing price of the SPY that day was 135.83. The next day, 4/10/08, the SPY opened at 135.35 (very close to prior day's close NAV). SPY is a traders playground.
In the world we live in today where anyone has access to a trading account, opportunities for actual arbitrage are extremely rare. Burton Malkiel made big bucks loading up on Closed End Funds in 2002 as they traded at a discount of 10-20% below their NAV. (Hence the argument against the 'Efficient Market Theory'.) As more and more Hedge Funds rush into the game, this practice has become increasingly obsolete.
In summary, fees are the real killer. The S&P 500 is a mere mathematical equation that doesn't take into account the Bid/Ask Spread or Commissions when rebalancing it's portfolio.
1. Fees, Fees, Fees, Fees, Fees. Even the most efficient ETF's have some kind of fee involved. SPY is probably one of the most efficient.
2. An ETF is a sample of the Index it attempts to represent. For example, the S&P 500 contains 500 companies but the SPY contains probably only about 100. The manager attempts to equally weight the ETF holdings to correlate with movements in the actual index. This is not always possible and may result in discrepancies with the actual index.
Don't get too excited about trying to capitalize on a discrepency in the actual NAV of an ETF vs it's current bid/ask. There are hundreds of Sharks in the Hedge Fund industry that make their money arbitraging ETF's in the same way that they arbitrage the Futures/Spot price/Index markets. In an ETF like SPY, the discrepancy between NAV and latest trading price might be ~.01% if you're lucky. When you're playing with millions of $$$ though, nickel dime trades over time do accumulate. If a shark sees that the SPY is trading below what they perceive to be it's NAV based on the current prices of it's holdings, they flood the system with buy orders. When it's trading above it's NAV, they flood it with sell orders. A constant tug-o-war amongst the big boys. Impossible for us Plebes to attempt as this is what's called Program Trading.
Example of how difficult is to arbitrage a highly liquid ETF: On 4/9/08 SPY had a NAV of 135.36 according to Yahoo. The closing price of the SPY that day was 135.83. The next day, 4/10/08, the SPY opened at 135.35 (very close to prior day's close NAV). SPY is a traders playground.
In the world we live in today where anyone has access to a trading account, opportunities for actual arbitrage are extremely rare. Burton Malkiel made big bucks loading up on Closed End Funds in 2002 as they traded at a discount of 10-20% below their NAV. (Hence the argument against the 'Efficient Market Theory'.) As more and more Hedge Funds rush into the game, this practice has become increasingly obsolete.
In summary, fees are the real killer. The S&P 500 is a mere mathematical equation that doesn't take into account the Bid/Ask Spread or Commissions when rebalancing it's portfolio.
Bullitt
Well-known member
Looks like the alleged bear is causing investors to relinquish their lust for exotica.
XL-entLady
Well-known member
Inverse ETF's are an interesting option in today's market. I've been dabbling with some success. But I hesitate to put any substantial amounts into a company that isn't backed by "full faith and credit," such as FDIC insurance.
I'd love to get opinions on which "securities and investment" type companies the MB thinks are going to best weather this storm and be around in - - say - - five years. Which ones do you have the most confidence in that they're safer, well capitalized, well managed, etc.?
Anyone willing to offer an opinion?
Thanks,
Lady
I'd love to get opinions on which "securities and investment" type companies the MB thinks are going to best weather this storm and be around in - - say - - five years. Which ones do you have the most confidence in that they're safer, well capitalized, well managed, etc.?
Anyone willing to offer an opinion?
Thanks,
Lady
Bullitt
Well-known member
In my opinion the Government isn't going to let anybody else fail that's TBTF after what happened globally with Lehman. Feel free to invest in ETF's at will.
I do caution investing in any low volume ETF's and ETN's, especially ETN's. ETN's don't invest in the underlying assets, but are backed by bonds and.... I really don't know how they work.
Look for good average volume before dabbling into any ETF. That's your best indicator of being 'safer' in regards to defaults.
This is no time to be messing around with 2x short funds if you're looking 5 years out. I'm still a believer in the global infrastructure story so a few good ETF's to consider with that respect would be
IGF: iShares Infrastructure (low volume though)
GII: Macquerie Global Infrastructure (very low volume)
SLX: Vectors Steel
MXI: iShares Global Materials
PHO: Powershares Water
I do caution investing in any low volume ETF's and ETN's, especially ETN's. ETN's don't invest in the underlying assets, but are backed by bonds and.... I really don't know how they work.
Look for good average volume before dabbling into any ETF. That's your best indicator of being 'safer' in regards to defaults.
This is no time to be messing around with 2x short funds if you're looking 5 years out. I'm still a believer in the global infrastructure story so a few good ETF's to consider with that respect would be
IGF: iShares Infrastructure (low volume though)
GII: Macquerie Global Infrastructure (very low volume)
SLX: Vectors Steel
MXI: iShares Global Materials
PHO: Powershares Water
XL-entLady
Well-known member
Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts! And I appreciate your confirmation of my opinion that the time for ultra-shorts has passed. I have been dealing lately with SH, SBB and EFZ and they have been treating me well. I'll take a good look at the ETF's you have suggested as well.
And who knows. The way the markets have been the last three days, the time for SPYders may not be far off!
My sincere appreciation! Thanks again!
Lady
Similar threads
