QUARTERLY UPDATES Q1 2010
Copyright Š 2010 by Institute of Business & Finance. All rights reserved.
v1.1
Quarterly Updates Table of Contents MUTUAL FUNDS DETERMINING ACTUAL FUND COSTS FUND MANAGEMENT CHANGES 12B-1 FEES WORLD STOCK FUNDS BUFFET TRACK RECORD PAST IS NOT A PREDICTOR MUTUAL FUND SINS SUPERIOR ACTIVE MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO CONCENTRATION ACTIVE VS. PASSIVE POPULAR VS. UNPOPULAR FUNDS INDEXING WHY INVESTORS DO NOT INDEX JENSEN‟S ALPHA, TREYNOR INDEX AND SHARPE INDEX USING PASSIVE AND ACTIVE MANAGEMENT MORNINGSTAR STAR RATINGS ACTIVE VS. PASSIVE RETURNS U.S. EQUITY FUNDS
1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 7.17 7.17 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.10
EXCHANGE-TRADED FUNDS LARGEST ETFS HISTORY OF ETFS
2.1 2.1
EXCHANGE-TRADED NOTES ETNS
3.1
STOCKS JANUARY EFFECT DIVIDEND ARISTOCRATS
4.1 4.1
STOCKS (CONT.) INVESTOR EXPECTATIONS GLOBAL STOCK RECOVERY FUNDAMENTAL AND TECHNICAL ANALYSIS MARKET TIMING ECONOMIC AND MARKET INDICATORS MARKET ANOMALIES GROWTH VS. VALUE SMALL FIRM EFFECT DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN
4.2 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.6
BONDS MUNICIPAL BOND DEFAULTS BOND ISSUANCE JUNK BONDS INTERMEDIATE-TERM BONDS
5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1
REAL ESTATE HOME PRICES REVERSE MORTGAGES GLOBAL HOMEOWNERSHIP RATES REITS
6.1 6.1 6.2 6.2
MARKET INDEXES BARCLAYS CAPITAL U.S. AGGREGATE BOND BARCLAYS CAPITAL U.S. TREASURY TIPS MSCI EAFE INDEX MSCI EMERGING MARKETS INDEX S&P 500 INDEX S&P 500 GROWTH INDEX S&P 500 VALUE INDEX RUSSELL 2000 VALUE INDEX RUSSELL 2000 GROWTH INDEX RUSSELL 2000 INDEX S&P 400 MIDCAP INDEX DOW JONES U.S. UTILITIES SECTOR INDEX
7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10 7.11 7.12
MARKET INDEXES (CONT.) DOW JONES U.S. REAL ESTATE INDEX MSCI ALL COUNTRY WORLD INDEX MSCI EAFE VALUE INDEX THE CASE FOR MID CAPS DECADE RETURNS FOR U.S. STOCKS [1830S-2000S]
7.13 7.14 7.15 7.16 7.16
QUARTERLY UPDATES MUTUAL FUNDS
Mutual Funds
1.DETERMINING
1.1
ACTUAL FUND COSTS ADDED TO CFS 5/2010
A mutual fund‟s total costs are measured differently, depending upon the study or expert cited. For example, Kopcke‟s study reviewed the 100 largest domestic stock funds owned by defined contribution plans as of December 2007. Kopcke found trading costs averaged 0.11% of assets annually in the quintile with the lowest costs and 1.99% of assets in the quintile with the highest cost, with a median of 0.66%. A different study, updated in 2009, looked at thousands of U.S. stock funds and concluded the average trading costs to be 1.44% of total assets, with an average of 0.14% in the bottom quintile and 2.9% in the top. According to study co-author Richard Evans of the University of Virginia‟s Darden School, “While some trading actually adds value, high trading costs overall tend to have a negative impact on performance. On average $1 in trading costs decreased net assets by 46 cents.” Market impact costs, and the resulting opportunity costs, are often the largest component of trading costs—as much as 1 ½ times brokerage (trading) commissions. These costs occur when a large trade changes the price of a security before the trade is completed. Similarly, opportunity costs occur when the impact of a trade inhibits a fund manager from filling an order on her terms, resulting in either a less-favorable price or fewer shares traded.
FUND MANAGEMENT CHANGES ADDED TO CFS 5/2010 In 2007, 397 open-end mutual funds experienced management changes (source: Morningstar). In 2008, the number was 391; it was roughly 280 for 2009. As of 2010, there were 6,710 open-end mutual funds.
12B-1 FEES ADDED TO CFS 5/2010 Since 1990, investors have paid $140 billion in 12b-1 fees (source: Lipper, 2010). Back in 1980, when 12b-1 fees were born, stock and bond mutual funds held less money than they had in 1971; almost a third of all accounts opened in 1971 were closed by 1980.
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
Mutual Funds
WORLD STOCK FUNDS
1.2
ADDED TO CFS 5/2010
Often times, small stocks are not adequately represented in a world stock fund. In the case of Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund (VFINX), small stocks represent less than 1% of the fund‟s portfolio, rather than the approximate 15% they make up of the global market.
MUTUAL FUND SINS ADDED TO CFS 5/2010 A fund analyst and observer noted the seven “sins” of mutual funds (source: Burton, 1997): [1] “hugging the index”—charging active management fees but seeking safety being part of the herd by “closet indexing;” [2] “racing the clock”—year-end trades to beef up a portfolio and keep management bonuses by taking on short-term risk; [3] “stalling the clock”—near-end-of-the-year moves to clean up a portfolio to reduce risk and increase returns; [4] “chasing performance”—higher than normal turnover coupled with inconsistent strategies in an effort to “get on the hot performance bandwagon;”
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
Mutual Funds
1.3
[5] “chasing yield”—increasing high-yield bond holdings to detriment of total returns; [6] “baiting and switching”—fund names and/or objectives that do not correlate with the actual portfolio and [7] “getting cold feet”—having excess cash when nervous about the market.
SUPERIOR ACTIVE MANAGEMENT ADDED TO CFS 5/2010 A 1995 study reviewed 17 large cap funds that outperformed the S&P 500 at least 37 out of 49 rolling 5-year periods. Common traits among these top-performing funds were: [1] seasoned managers, [2] consistent rather than headline returns, [3] independent thinkers, [4] using fundamental analysis for predominantly value funds, [5] contrarian investing, [6] conviction in judgment, as reflected in concentrated portfolios, [7] long-term investment horizon and low turnover and [8] managers listed by name instead of by management team or a long list of managers (source: Arnott, 1995). Qualifying portfolio management is difficult. Each year, Morningstar selects a “Portfolio Manager of the Year.” A 2000 study looked at the subsequent performance of these star managers: only slightly more than 50% of them outperformed their peers and those who tried to time the market had the least reliable returns (source: Bryant, 2000). Mutual fund portfolio managers who have returns higher than their peers tend to: [1] be individually identified to shareholders, [2] be known for their investment style, [3] are younger than average and well educated and [4] have longer-than-average tenure with the fund they oversee (source: Chevalier and Ellison, Journal of Finance, June 1999). Mutual funds with superior peer returns generally have the following characteristics: [a] below-average asset size and above-average stability, [b] below-average systematic risk, [c] high tax efficiency, [d] below-average expense ratios and [e] comparatively steady returns over time (note: these qualities are consistent with value investing).
PORTFOLIO CONCENTRATION
ADDED TO CFS 5/2010
A study of over 12,000 portfolios for 10- and 18-year periods shows the fewer the number of stocks in a fund, the greater the likelihood it will outperform the market. For example, the chances of a 250-stock portfolio outperforming the market is 1-in-50, but 1-in-4 for a 15-stock portfolio (source: Hester, 2001). One author notes, “You concentrate to create wealth; you diversify to preserve it.” Warren Buffet once said, “Diversification is a protection against ignorance.”
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
Mutual Funds
ACTIVE VS. PASSIVE
1.4
ADDED TO CFS 5/2010
A study covering the 20-year period 1975-1994 looked at 1,788 funds and concluded the average fund outperformed the S&P 500 by 130 basis points on a gross return basis; once all costs were factored in (net return before taxes), these same funds averaged 100 basis points less than the index. The 230 basis point difference was explained as: 70 basis points due to lower returns on non-stock holdings in the funds and 160 basis points roughly split between expense ratios and trading costs (source: Wermers, 2000). These findings indicate fund managers have good stock selection abilities—it is cash holdings, securities transactions, fund profitability and overhead (all things an index does not incur) that bring returns down below an index. This is somewhat consistent with Bogle‟s 1999 findings that 92% of the shortfall of active funds (vs. index funds) was due to expenses. Wermers went on to point out the gross return advantage was completely lost if adjusted for their higher risk (compared to the index). Over a 25-year period, returns for the top-performing 30 funds were compared to their subsequent 5-year periods for five subsequent periods. In each case, the S&P 500 outperformed the top 30 funds from the previous 5-year period. One observer wrote: “The 5year „alpha man‟ became „ape man‟ over the next five years” (source: Bernstein, 1995).
POPULAR VS. UNPOPULAR FUNDS Funds over the period 1987-1996 were divided into two broad categories: popular (funds with highest percentage net cash inflows) and unpopular (funds not widely held). Study results showed 78% of the unpopular funds for any given year outperformed the typical equity fund over the next one, two and three years; results were consistent for 24 of 27 periods studied (source: Paluch and Kelly, 1996). In a sequel study using the same criteria, unpopular and popular funds for the period 1987-1999 were compared. Again, unpopular equity funds did better than popular equity funds 78% of the time. Furthermore, 89% of unpopular funds outperformed the then currently most popular fund (source: Barbee, 1999). The study‟s author concluded, “This (contrarian) strategy is the closest investing gets to a sure thing.” This strategy was reconfirmed by a 2000 study (source: DiTeresa, 2000).
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
Mutual Funds
INDEXING
1.5
ADDED TO CFS 5/2010
Bogle wrote that 79% of all surviving equity funds failed to beat the S&P 500 during the first 20 years of index funds. When the first retail domestic index fund was launched in 1976 (Vanguard 500 Index Fund), it was called “Bogle‟s Folly” and attracted just $11 million its first year. The fund did not manage $10 billion in assets until 1995.
WHY INVESTORS DO NOT INDEX ADDED TO CFS 5/2010 There are a number of investor beliefs and attitudes that make it hard for them to invest their own money in index funds. First, investors think they can beat the market. Second, investors feel there is no order in the market and if they knew “the key,” they could outperform it. Third, they like to use investor newsletters and be told what to do. Fourth, investors have a hard time believing the market is random. Fifth, people like to take credit when there are good returns and blame someone else for poor returns (source: Clements, 1998).
JENSEN’S ALPHA, TREYNOR INDEX AND SHARPE INDEX ADDED TO CFS 5/2010 Jensen’s Alpha, also known as Jensen coefficient, or simply alpha, evaluates a portfolio‟s actual return compared to expected return, given its systematic risk and the CAPM. Any positive number is good; the greater the positive number, the better. It should be noted a positive number may be the result of security selection, low expenses and/or market timing. Security selection may be due to management skill or simply luck (source: Jensen, 1968). The Treynor Index, also known as Treynor ratio, relates a portfolio‟s return to its risk. The measurement assumes portfolios are well diversified. The Treynor Index (or ratio) is calculated by taking the risk-free rate of return (usually T-bill rate) and subtracting it from the portfolio‟s mean return; the resulting number is then divided by the portfolio‟s beta. As you can see from the formula, the risk component is systematic risk (source: Treynor, 1965). The Sharpe Index, also known as the Sharpe ratio, describes portfolio returns based on standard deviation. Specifically, the risk-free rate of return is subtracted from the fund‟s return; the resulting number is divided by the portfolio‟s standard deviation. QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
Mutual Funds
1.6
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
Mutual Funds
1.7
Of the three widely used measurements of risk-adjusted returns (Jensen, Treynor and Sharpe), only Jensen Alpha calculates how a portfolio’s returns compare to its market index. When the risk-free rate of return is low, it becomes easier for a mutual fund (or any portfolio) to have comparatively superior returns when the Sharpe or Treynor index is used.
USING PASSIVE AND ACTIVE MANAGEMENT TO CFS 5/2010
ADDED
Some in the academic community feel there is a place for both active and passive management in a portfolio. Investing in large cap domestic stock funds favors indexing while active management favors small cap funds. Indexing is the preferred choice for foreign stocks of developed countries, active management is best for emerging markets or specific regions (source: Dziubinski, 1998 and DiTeresa 1999). Despite these conclusions, results of these two studies are quite varied, as reflected below (note: time periods for each study were slightly different).
When Active Outperforms Passive Management [two studies] Category
Active (Dziubinksi)
Active (DiTeresa)
Large Cap Growth
2%
6%
Large Cap Blend
0%
4%
Large Cap Value
31%
17%
Mid Cap Growth
33%
n/a
Mid Cap Blend
47%
30%
Mid Cap Value
53%
n/a
Small Cap Growth
47%
91%
Small Cap Blend
100%
54%
Small Cap Value
53%
81%
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
Mutual Funds
1.8
MORNINGSTAR STAR RATINGS The Morningstar (star) Rating system is comprised of two parts: longevity and riskadjusted returns. Funds with 10-year histories are weighted (based on risk-adjusted returns described below): 50% for the entire 10-year period, 30% for the most recent 5year period and 20% for the most recent 3-year period. For funds with 5-year histories: 60% for the 5-year period and 40% for the most recent 3-years. If a fund only has three years of returns, the entire 3-year period is given a weighting of 100%. In the case of funds with 5- or 10-year track records, the most recent periods are “counted” 2-3 times. The other component (risk-adjusted returns) is calculated by taking a fund‟s Morningstar Risk measurement and subtracting it from the fund‟s Morningstar Return score. Both Blume (1998) and Share (1998) have been critical of Morningstar performance measurements. Sharpe felt Morningstar star ratings were of limited value when selecting individual funds or constructing an entire portfolio. Another study concluded: [1] just one month‟s or one year‟s returns can significantly change a funds rating, [2] funds with 10+ year track records do a better job of maintaining their star rating than a fund that has only been around for three years, [3] ratings do a good job in predicting poor fund performance (but not in predicting excellent performance) and [4] future performance ends up being about the same whether the fund has a current rating of three, four or five stars (source: Zweig, 2000).
ACTIVE VS. PASSIVE RETURNS
ADDED TO CFS 5/2010
Advisors often cite three reasons active management is better than indexing: [1] indexing did not do well last year (or some other year), [2] indexing may work for large cap domestic stocks, but not for small cap or foreign stocks where markets are less efficient and [3] active managers do better in down markets. Each of these three reasons is examined below. In 1977, 1978 and 1979, the Vanguard 500 Index Fund beat 15%, 25% and 28% of domestic funds, respectively. However, for 15 years ending 12/31/2008, Vanguard fund beat 73% of active managers in its class; Vanguard Total Stock Fund outperformed 68% of its peer group.
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
Mutual Funds
1.9
For the 10 years ending 12/31/2008, Vanguard Total International Fund beat 69% of active managers. Over the past 15 years, DFA U.S. Microcap and U.S. Small Value Funds (both index funds) beat 73% and 80% of their peers, respectively. Moreover, poor performance of stocks over the past 10 years favors active funds that have a much higher percentage of their assets in cash equivalents than their index fund counterparts. During the 1973-74 recession, the average domestic stock fund lost 48%, versus 43% for S&P 500. From September to November 1987 (includes October crash), active funds outperformed S&P 500 by 0.8%. This advantage is not particularly impressive since active funds generally hold 5-10% in cash. For 2008, Vanguard 500 Index Fund beat 62% of its large blend category peers (again, surprising since cash held by actively managed funds should have helped cushion their losses). If an index fund dooms a client to mediocrity, then mediocrity must be defined as beating 60-80% of the competition in the long term. One author compares an index fund to a shell game with 10 different shells. Under each shell is a dollar amount ($1,000, $2,000, $3,000, etc.). The index fund pays a guaranteed $8,000 while the investor could choose the shell worth $10,000 or the one worth $1,000. The figures used to compare active and passive funds is tainted in favor of active management. Morningstar‟s database suffers from “survivorship bias.” This means hundreds of poorly performing funds have disappeared from their fund universe—all of which likely underperformed its category index. There can be little argument in the case of bond funds, with the possible exception of some PIMCO funds. From 1999 through 2008, Vanguard Short-, Intermediate- and LongTerm Bond Index Funds beat 99%, 96% and 92%, respectively, of their peer groups. From 1995-2008, Vanguard Limited-, Intermediate- and Long-Term Tax-Exempt Funds (none are indexed) beat 92%, 82% and 97% of their peers.
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
Mutual Funds
1.10
U.S. EQUITY FUNDS Even though the U.S. stock market is mostly comprised of small cap stocks, most mutual funds are large cap. Of the 2,600 domestic equity funds at the end of 2009, 51% were large cap, 26% mid cap and 23% small cap. For any given year, ~35% of domestic equity funds have a negative return; about half of all U.S. stocks experience a negative return. Most U.S. stock funds have “herd like� performance. The table below shows the percentage of U.S. stocks and U.S. equity funds whose returns have been negative (source: Financial Planning, April 2010).
U.S. Stocks and U.S. Equity Funds With Negative Returns 2000 2001 2002
2003
2004 2005 2006 2007
2008
2009
U.S. Stocks
60%
47%
63%
15%
33%
52%
39%
64%
89%
39%
U.S. Equity Funds
54%
77%
97%
0.3%
2%
6%
2%
27%
99.8% 0.4%
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
QUARTERLY UPDATES EXCHANGE-TRADED FUNDS
Exchange-Traded Funds
2.LARGEST
2.1
ETFS
The 10 largest ETFs account for almost 40% of all ETF assets. The 10 funds with the most trading activity account for roughly 60% of all ETF trading volume. For example, SPDR (S&P 500) trading close to three billion shares in December 2009, with an average bid-ask spread of just one penny.
HISTORY OF ETFS The head of new products at the AMEX came up with the idea of “warehouse receipts” when creating ETFs. At the time, the American Stock Exchange was desperately looking for new revenue-generating products. Even in its early stages (the year 2000), ETFs accounted for over 67% of total AMEX trading volume. Today, the figure is dramatically higher. The idea behind warehouse receipts is they may be bought and sold, but the underlying commodity remains unmoved in warehouses. The receipts provide a separation of fund management functions from trading. By not moving physical assets (or stock shares in the case of ETFs), assets are secured in vaults and trading costs reduced. In the case of iShares ETF index shares (largest ETF issuer), they are held in book entry form by the Depository Trust Company, as owner of record. The link between this form of commodity trading and securities is evidenced in the names given to shares of index funds: depository receipts, receipts or deposit shares. Early ETFs were organized as UITs, an inexpensive structure easy to oversee. Today, almost all ETFs are hybrid mutual funds including features of closed- and open-end funds. ETF shares are formed by participants who “create” (buy) creation units; specific securities that match the composition of a particular market index. These securities are then delivered to custodian banks that, in turn, deliver index shares to the participants once purchase trades have settled. Such exchanges occur after the markets have closed for the day. Creation units are denominated in fractions of the index, ranging in price from 1/5th to 1/100th of the underlying price of the market index. These units typically represent 50,000 shares of the index (but range from 25,000 to 600,000 depending on issuer and specific index).
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
Exchange-Traded Funds
2.2
Creation units are sold by an authorized participant who packages the needed number of redemption units of the index shares; transactions commonly done by market specialists. ETFs pay for redemption units with in-kind stock portfolios that match the index‟s composition. Custodians make these exchanges after market hours. The exchange of index shares for in-kind stock portfolios are tax-free under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). Unlike mutual funds, ETFs do not realize capital gains when they redeem redemption units. Such tax-free transactions allow large investors to unbundle in-kind portfolios and take advantage of any tax losses by selling one or more securities in the portfolio (and hold onto the “winners” by not realizing a gain). The discount or premium of an ETF index share (to the net value of the underlying securities in the index) owned by your clients is normally extremely small because of arbitrage. Unlike mutual funds (which are only required to report holdings twice a year), arbitrageurs know the exact portfolio being received for their redemption units (since ETFs have continuous 100% transparency). For example, one study in 2000 showed the difference between the cumulative securities in the S&P 500 and the $150 market price of SPYs (an S&P 500 ETF) was about three cents per share (0.03/150.00 = 0.0002) (source: Zigler, 2000). Another study the same year concluded premiums and discounts for ETF shares was “narrow and fleeting.” The first S&P 500 ETF was introduced in 1993 by State Street Global Advisors and structured as a UIT; later offerings by State Street were organized as mutual funds. Back in 2000, Spiders (S&P Depository Receipts) were held for an average of just 19 days. DJIA Model New Deposit Shares (Diamonds) were first offered as a UIT in 1998 and trade at 1/100th of its value. NASDAQ-100 Tracking Stocks (QQQ), known as “Cubes,” were first offered as UITs in 1998. The NASDAQ 100 is the technology sector of the NASDAQ Index. Back in 2000, Cubes were held for an average of four days. In 1998, Merrill Lynch created Holding Company Depository Receipts (HOLDRs). These “grantor trusts” differ from UIT and mutual fund ETFs. In 1996, Barclays Global Fund Investors first offered “Individual Shares” (iShares) organized as mutual funds. Barclays‟ San Francisco-based subsidiary was formally Wells Fargo Investment Advisors, the 1960s creators of institutional indexed portfolios. iShares trade at 1/10th the market value of their underlying index. The earliest Barclays series were known as WEBS (World Equity Benchmark Shares). Vanguard sought approval for its first ETFs in 2001 (Vipers—Vanguard Index Participation Equity Receipts).
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
QUARTERLY UPDATES EXCHANGE-TRADED NOTES
Exchange-Traded Notes
3.1
3.ETNS
As of the second quarter of 2010, ETNs have cumulatively attracted about 1% of the dollars that have gone into ETFs. As of November 2009, there were 820 ETFs and just 90 ETNs. Yet, if someone is interested in adding a commodities-type asset, ETNs are likely to be more tax efficient than similar commodity-based ETFs. Most commodity-type ETFs buy futures contracts. Under tax law, taxable investors owe tax on any appreciation each year, even if the ETF investor does not sell any shares. Any gain is taxed 60% as long-term and 40% is taxed as short-term (ordinary income). Furthermore, a large number are structured as limited partnerships, meaning the ETF investor receives a K-1 instead of a 1099. ETNs are more tax-friendly. Although the IRS has not yet ruled on how commodity ETNs, the accepted practice, based on tax opinion letters from different law firms, is to treat the notes as prepaid financial contracts. This means gains are only taxed upon sale and gains on commodity ETNs held more than one year are considered long-term. Furthermore, ETN investors do not have to worry about “tracking error,” the issuer promises the investor an index-based return. An ETN favored by Morningstar is Elements S&P Commodity Trends Indicator Total Return. One of the portfolio‟s favored strategies is to buy commodities rising in price and betting against those falling (source: The Wall Street Journal, December 2009).
Largest ETNs Exchange-Traded Note
Size
iPath Dow Jones-UBS Commodity (DJP)
$2 billion
iPath MSCI India (INP)
$1.2 billion
iPath S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures (VXX)
$705 million
iPath S&P GSCI Crude Oil (OIL)
$585 million
PowerShares DB Gold Double Long (DGP)
$475 million
JP Morgan Alerian MLP (SAMJ)
$470 million
Elements Rogers Int‟l Commodity (RJI)
$420 million
Elements Rogers Int‟l Agriculture (RJA)
$310 million
iPath Dow Jones-UBS Natural Gas (GAZ)
$180 million
iPath Dow Jones-UBS Copper (JCJ)
$140 million
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
QUARTERLY UPDATES STOCKS
Stocks
4.1
4.JANUARY
EFFECT
In normal years, investors try to front-run the expected January rise in the stock market by bidding stocks up higher in late December. Since 1900, the DJIA has risen a median 1% in the last five trading days of December; this is more than four times the median rise for five-day periods in general. The Dow‟s median rise for the first five trading days in January is 0.63%. In the years when the Dow has risen in the first month of the year, the median rise for the rest of the year has been 10.4%. In years when the Dow has fallen in January, the median for the next 11 months has been just 0.28% (source: Ned Davis Research).
How Often Dow Has Gone Up [1900-2009] Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
62%
50%
61%
56%
52%
49%
62%
65%
42%
56%
62%
71%
Average Monthly Returns of Dow [1900-2009] Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
0.9%
-0.2%
0.7%
1.2%
0.0%
0.2%
1.3%
1.1%
-1.1%
0.1%
0.9%
1.5%
DIVIDEND ARISTOCRATS During 2008, there were several S&P 500 companies that had raised their dividends every year for at least 25 years in a row. For the 2008 calendar year, these dividend “aristocrats” fell 21.6% versus a 37% loss for the S&P 500 as a whole. Annuities and Long-Term Care As of January 2010, annuities began offering products that provided traditional deferred growth packaged with long-term care benefits. For example, a 65-year-old can buy a $100,000 deferred annuity that earns 3% a year and provides up to $300,000 in long-term care benefits. Your client can also buy a life insurance policy combined with long-term care coverage in which a portion of the policy‟s death benefit is paid to cover long-term care expenses, reducing the death benefit accordingly.
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
Stocks
4.2
Other investments can also benefit under the 2010 provisions of the Pension Protection Act of 2006. Money transferred directly from an annuity or cash value portion of a life insurance policy can be used to pay for long-term care insurance without triggering a tax event. The health questionnaire for these linked products typically asks 10 questions, versus 50 questions for traditional long-term care policies.
INVESTOR EXPECTATIONS A 2009 survey shows investors expect U.S. stocks to go up 13.7% per year for the next 10 years. Since 1926, large cap stocks have averaged 9.8% a year; their long-term net return (after inflation, taxes and costs) is under 4%. When a handful of experts were asked what net rate of return (after inflation, taxes and costs) they would be willing to swap their assets for, the responses were: 4% (William Bernstein, noted MPT author), 3% (Laurence Siegel, Ford Foundation), 2.5% (John Bogle) and 0.5% (Elroy Dimson, London Business School).
GLOBAL STOCK RECOVERY The table below shows stock market losses from around the world, from the September 15, 2008 peak to the March 9, 2009 trough plus the resulting gain from March 9, 2009 to December 31, 2009 (source: Charles Schwab). 9/08-3/09 -48.7%
3/09-12/09 91.1%
China
9/08-3/09 -28.2%
3/09-12/09 83.5%
U.S.
-43.3%
64.8%
Japan
-37.0%
38.8%
Brazil
-41.1%
125.7%
China
-28.2%
83.5%
U.K.
-48.0%
80.3%
Indonesia
-39.9%
161.9%
Germany
-48.3%
76.1%
Australia
-47.8%
118.9%
Canada
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
Stocks
4.3
FUNDAMENTAL AND TECHNICAL ANALYSIS Market forecasting is generally done by fundamental or technical analysis. Fundamental analysis considers economic indicators (e.g., GDP, inflation rate, interest rates and corporate earnings) to make market forecasts. Technical analysis is largely based on identifying and interpreting market trends such as moving averages. Technicians and fundamentalists both make forecasts based on investor sentiment, although such sentiment is more frequently used in technical analysis. It is generally accepted an investor cannot expect to beat the market unless more systematic risk is taken on. However, behavioral finance believes there is opportunity for abnormal returns by taking advantage of the psychological errors made by other investors in the marketplace.
MARKET TIMING A 1998 study by Sherden looked at the accuracy of market forecasters and found that almost all of them had records no better than flipping a coin. Even the Federal Reserve predicted only three of six turning points in GDP from 1980 to 1995 plus missed both inflation points (source: Sherden, 1998).
ECONOMIC AND MARKET INDICATORS Although there are no “best” indicators to predict the economy or market, there are “seven engines for prosperity” (source: Mueller 2000): [1] population demographics, [2] lowering of tax rates, [3] trade liberalization, [4] technology advances, [5] deregulation, [6] welfare reform and [7] monetary policy. The indicators most frequently followed by market observers are: advance/decline line, market index P/E ratios, dividend yields and an increase in one index while there is a decrease in on or more other indexes (e.g., DJ Utilities Index, S&P 500 or NASDAQ). Commonly followed sell signals are the ratio of 90-day T-bill rate to the S&P 500 Index yield, index of leading economic indicators, divergence of advance/decline line and the S&P 500 as well as the divergence of the DJIA and S&P 500.
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
Stocks
4.4
MARKET ANOMALIES An anomaly can represent something contrary to the theory of efficient markets. Some believe such anomalies lose their effectiveness once embraced by enough investors. The most written-about anomalies include P/E and P/B ratios (low numbers tend to outperform higher ratios), small cap size (returns tend to decrease as market caps increase), the effect of momentum trading (recent good or bad performance tends to continue, at least for a short period) and the reversal effect (poor performers subsequently become the better performers and vice versa).
GROWTH VS. VALUE A study looked at the one and three year periods following market highs of 1937, 1967, 1972, 1987 and 1992. In the years after these highs, low P/E stocks appreciated an average of 3% while high P/E stocks dropped by just under 3%. During the three years after market highs, low P/E stocks did better than high P/E stocks by over 7% (source: Berry, 1997). Other studies believe value trumps growth because value investors are compensated for taking on additional risk, investors overvalue glamour (growth) stocks and investor error in expectations of value and growth equities. The table below compares growth and value stocks for the years 1963-1999 (source: Berstein, 1999).
Growth vs. Value [1963-1999] Annualized Return
Total Risk
Largest Annual Loss
Small Value
17%
19%
31%
Small Growth
10%
23%
51%
Large Value
15%
15%
28%
Large Growth
12%
16%
45%
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
Stocks
4.5
The weight of evidence shows value stocks have historically been underpriced compared to their actual risk and return characteristics. One reason this trend continues is because value stocks are not well known by investors. Another reason is glamour stocks are more widely followed. Finally, the case for value stocks was not particularly compelling prior to quantitative analysis, portfolio construction and the use of evaluation measurements. Value investing requires patience. Fund managers tend to have a shorterterm investment horizon; they do not want to lose their job or bonus by underperforming a benchmark index such as the S&P 500 even for 1-2 years. Corporate earnings surprises for the five years after a stock is included in a portfolio are routinely positive for value stocks and negative for glamour issues. For the period 1974-1994, value stocks outperformed growth stocks domestically and internationally. Based on B/P ratios, value did better than growth in 12 of the 13 major markets studied. The difference between high and low P/Es of global stocks is over 7% per year. The same is true with emerging markets (source: Fama and French, 1998).
Asset Size Value funds tend to outperform growth funds as asset size increases. However, growth funds risk-adjusted returns can quickly become negative as asset size increases (source: Barbee, 1998). One reason for this disparity may be because growth funds are competing for popular stocks while value funds look at unloved equities.
SMALL FIRM EFFECT The notion that small cap stocks outperform large cap stocks over time is referred to as the small-firm effect. There are two reasons this may be true. First, beta may not capture the actual risk of smaller securities. Second, there is less information on these types of stocks; neglected stocks can earn abnormally high returns—something seen domestically and overseas. A 40/60 (mid cap/S&P 500) mix has less risk and about the same return as a 40% allocation to small caps (source: Damodaran, 1998). One reason small stock historical returns look so appealing is such indexes do not include subsequent failed or delisted issues. On average, stocks that leave the NASDAQ lose more than 50% of their value. In fact, once these “phantom” stocks are added back in the measurement, the small cap return advantage disappears. Thus, small cap index returns are probably the biggest beneficiaries of survivorship bias. Another reason for the higher reported returns is close to 60% of the smallest stocks rarely trade; any significant trade in such securities could pump up their price quite a bit—perhaps as much as 2040% (source: Updegrave, 1999).
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
Stocks
4.6
For comparison purposes, it should be pointed out about a third of the returns from the S&P 500 are due to just 5% of the index’s stocks. Historically, small stocks have outperformed large cap issues during the first third of bull markets that follow bear markets; large cap stocks perform best in the late stages of bull markets and sometimes throughout bear markets (source: Fisher, 1998).
DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN A study looked at using foreign equities for the period 1971-1991 and found an 80/20 (U.S./foreign) equity mix provided the minimum amount of risk and was always less risky than a domestic-only stock portfolio. The studyâ€&#x;s author also concluded that over the period of 1980-1990, a global stock/bond portfolio had twice the return but the same risk level as a U.S.-only portfolio (source: Solnik, 2000).
Currency Hedging Currency hedging is used less than most fund investors suspect. Although many world bond funds hedge, only about a third of all foreign stock funds use currency hedging frequently (source: Arnott, 1996). In 1996, 23% of international fund returns were due to hedging, just 13% a year later (source: Rothschild, 1998).
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
QUARTERLY UPDATES BONDS
BONDS
5.MUNICIPAL
5.1
BOND DEFAULTS
According to Municipal Market Advisors, the U.S. municipal bond market totals $2.8 trillion. From July 2009 to March 2010, 171 municipal default notices were filed, representing just 0.19% of the muni bond market. Of the 171 defaults, 170 were from riskier bonds, such as those backed by casinos or land.
BOND ISSUANCE For the first quarter of 2010, U.S. corporate investment-grade issuance was around $325 billion, the most since the second quarter of 2009, but down from $345 billion during the first quarter of 2009. Treasury securities issuance totaled $600 billion in the first quarter of 2010, compared with $454 billion in the first quarter of 2009.
JUNK BONDS According to Baylor University finance professor Reichenstein, junk bond returns mirror a portfolio comprised of 2/3 investment-grade bonds, 1/6 in large cap stocks and 1/6 in small cap stocks.
INTERMEDIATE-TERM BONDS By investing in intermediate-term bond funds, the investor can obtain 90% of the returns enjoyed by long-term bond funds but with just half the volatility (source: Powell, 1993).
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
QUARTERLY UPDATES REAL ESTATE
Real Estate
6.HOME
6.1
PRICES
According to data collected by Robert Shiller of Yale, in the 61 years from 1945 through 2006, the maximum cumulative decline in the average price of homes was 2.8% in 1991. From 2000 through 2006, national home prices rose 88.7%; far more than the 17.5% gain in the CPI or the 1% rise in median household income. Never before had home prices jumped that far ahead of prices and incomes. The table below shows the top five gainers and losers in the S&P/Case-Shiller home price index as of the end of January 2010. Gainers
S.F.
San Diego
Dallas
L.A.
D.C.
1/2009-1/2010
9%
6%
4%
4%
3%
-37%
-37%
-5%
-36%
-29%
Las Vegas -17%
Detroit -7%
Tampa -7%
Miami -7%
Seattle -6%
-56%
-43%
-42%
-47%
-23%
Change From Peak Losers 1/2009-1/2010 Change From Peak
REVERSE MORTGAGES One of the biggest criticisms of reverse mortgages has been fees, which can total 5% of the home’s value. The 2010 cuts in fees mean some homeowners can save $10,000 or more on closing costs. Lenders are reducing fees to attract business. From October 2009 to March 2010, home equity-conversion mortgage volume fell 22% from the same period the previous year. One reason for the drop in activity was that HUD reduced the amount a homeowner could receive from a reverse mortgage by 10%. This meant many owners would no longer qualify for enough of a reverse mortgage to pay off their regular mortgage—a requirement for getting approval for a reverse mortgage. Origination fees can be as high as $6,000. The reverse mortgage (home-equity conversion mortgage) backed by HUD accounts for over 60% of all such loans. HUD requires borrowers to have mortgage insurance. New lower closing costs on reverse mortgages could help homeowners save thousands of dollars. For example, a 70-year-old borrower (eligible for a reverse mortgage up to $387,500 on a $625,000 home) would incur the following costs:
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
Real Estate
6.2
$387,500 Reverse Mortgage on a $625,000 home Closing Costs Origination fee
Old Pricing $6,000
New Pricing $0
Set-aside for monthly service fee
$4,997
$0
HUD insurance
$12,500
$12,500
Other costs (approx.)
$5,400
$5,400
What homeowner gets
$358,603
$369,600
GLOBAL HOMEOWNERSHIP RATES As of the beginning of 2010, 67% of Americans owned their homes; the rate peaked in 2004 at 69% (source: U.S. Commerce Department).
Global Homeownership [2008] Italy (82%)
France (65%)
U.K. (73%)
Japan (61%)
Canada (69%)
Germany (56%)
U.S. (67%)
REITS As of the beginning of 2010, institutions owned more than 80% of all REITs; individual investors own the remaining 20%. From the beginning of 2000 to the end of 2009, the DJ U.S. Equity All REIT appreciated 200% versus a slightly negative cumulative return for the S&P 500.
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
QUARTERLY UPDATES MARKET INDEXES
MARKET INDEXES
7.1
7.BARCLAYS
CAPITAL U.S. AGGREGATE BOND
This index, called Lehman Brothers Aggregate Bond Index before 2008, measures returns of U.S. investment grade bonds market, which includes investment grade U.S. Government bonds, high quality corporate bonds, mortgage pass-through securities and asset-backed securities publicly offered for sale in the U.S. The indexâ€&#x;s securities must have at least one year remaining to maturity; they must also be denominated in U.S. dollars and must be fixed rate, nonconvertible and taxable. The index has 8,410 holdings with an average selling price of 103.6. Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index (1995-2009) 1995
18.5%
1998
8.7%
2001
8.4%
2004
4.3%
2007
7.0%
1996
3.6%
1999
-0.8%
2002
10.3%
2005
2.4%
2008
5.2%
1997
9.6%
2000
11.6%
2003
4.1%
2006
4.3%
2009
5.9%
Barclays Aggregate Bond ETF seeks to match the indexâ€&#x;s performance, before expenses. Portfolio maturity is: 25% (0-1 years), 30% (1-5 years), 18% (5-10 years) and 6% (10-15 years). Less than 1% of holdings are rated below BBB-. Performance History (12-31-2009) 2009
3 Year
5 Year
10 Year
ETF
5.1%
5.9%
4.8%
n/a
Index
5.9%
6.0%
5.0%
6.3%
Fundamentals and ETF Profile (3-2010) Inception (symbol: AGG)
9/2003
Distribution Yield
4.1%
ETF Credit Rating (S&P)
AAA
30-Day SEC Yield
1.8%
Standard Deviation (3 year)
4%
Largest Sector (Treasurys)
28%
Average Weighted Maturity
6.1 years
Govt. + Agency + AAA
76%
Effective Duration
4.3 years
Total Holdings
305
Average Weighted Coupon
5.0%
Assets
$11 billion
Average Y-T-M
3.2%
Expense Ratio
0.2%
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
MARKET INDEXES
7.2
BARCLAYS CAPITAL U.S. TREASURY TIPS This index measures returns of the Treasury market as defined by the Barclays Capital U.S. Treasury Inflation Protected Securities Index. The index is comprised of just 29 holdings with an adjusted duration of 4.7 years and a weighted average maturity of nine years. Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index (2004-2009) 2004
8.5%
2007
11.6%
2005
2.8%
2008
-2.4%
2006
0.4%
2009
11.4%
Barclays Capital U.S. Treasury ETF seeks to match the index‟s performance. Portfolio maturity is: 38% (1-5 years), 31% (5-10 years), 6% (10-15 years) and 22% (15-20 years). The fund‟s top 10 holdings equal 46% of the total portfolio. Performance History (12-31-2009) 2009
3 Year
5 Year
10 Year
ETF
11.4%
6.6%
4.4%
n/a
Index
11.4%
6.7%
4.6%
7.7%
Fundamentals and ETF Profile (3-2010) Inception (symbol: TIP)
12/2003
Distribution Yield
5.0%
ETF Credit Rating (S&P)
AAA
30-Day SEC Yield
0.8%
Standard Deviation (3 year)
9%
Largest Sector (Treasurys)
100%
Average Weighted Maturity
9.0 years
Total Holdings
30
Effective Duration
5.0 years
Assets
$21 billion
Average Weighted Coupon
2.2%
Expense Ratio
0.2%
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
MARKET INDEXES
7.3
MSCI EAFE INDEX This market capitalization index measures returns of 21 developed market indices: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and U.K. Index total market capitalization is $13.2 trillion and there are 960 holdings. MSCI EAFE (Europe, Australasia, Far East) Index (1995-2009) 1995
11.2%
1998
20.0%
2001
-21.4%
2004
20.2%
2007
11.2%
1996
6.0%
1999
27.0%
2002
-15.9%
2005
13.5%
2008
-43.4%
1997
1.8%
2000
-14.2%
2003
38.6%
2006
26.3%
2009
31.8%
EFA matches returns of stocks in European, Australasian and Far Eastern markets. The top 10 countries represent 90% of the index; its top five stock positions are: HSBC Holdings (2.0%), Nestle (1.8%), BP (1.7%), BHP Billiton (1.3%) and TOTAL (1.2%). Country Weightings (3-2010) Japan
23%
Switzerland
8%
Italy
3%
U.K.
21%
Germany
8%
Netherlands
3%
France
10%
Spain
4%
Sweden
3%
Australia
8%
Performance History (12-31-2009) 2009
3 Year
5 Year
10 Year
ETF
31.4%
-6.1%
3.4%
n/a
Index
31.8%
-6.0%
3.5%
1.2%
Fundamentals and ETF Profile (3-2010) Inception (symbol: EFA)
8/2001
Beta
1.1
Standard Deviation (3 year)
24%
30-Day SEC Yield
0.7%
P/E Ratio
22
Largest Sector (financials)
25%
P/B Ratio
2.6
Total Holdings
853
Average Market Cap
$53 billion
Expense Ratio
0.4%
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
MARKET INDEXES
7.4
MSCI EMERGING MARKETS INDEX This market capitalization index measures returns of 22 emerging markets indices: Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Czech Republic, Egypt, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Russia, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand and Turkey. The index captures 85% of the publicly available total market capitalization of emerging markets; its total market capitalization is $6.5 trillion. The index has 770 holdings. MSCI Emerging Markets Index (1995-2009) 1995
-5.2%
1998
-25.3%
2001
2.6%
2004
25.5%
2007
39.4%
1996
6.0%
1999
66.5%
2002
-6.2%
2005
34.0%
2008
-53.3%
1997
-11.6%
2000
-30.8%
2003
55.8%
2006
32.2%
2009
78.5%
EEM matches returns of the MSCI Emerging Markets Index. The top 10 countries equal 84% of the index; its top five holdings are: Petroleo Brasilerio (4.4%), Samsung (3.2%), Taiwan Semiconductor (2.4%), Banco Itau (2.2%) and Posco (1.9%). Total ETF assets are $36 billion. Country Weightings (3-2010) Brazil
15%
South Africa
8%
Russia
6%
South Korea
12%
Hong Kong
7%
Mexico
5%
China
11%
India
6%
Israel
3%
Taiwan
10%
Performance History (12-31-2009) 2009
3 Year
5 Year
10 Year
ETF
71.8%
4.9%
15.1%
n/a
Index
78.5%
5.1%
15.5%
9.8%
Fundamentals and ETF Profile (3-2010) Inception (symbol: EEM)
4/2003
Beta
1.7
Standard Deviation (3 year)
32%
30-Day SEC Yield
0.8%
P/E Ratio
22
Largest Sector (financials)
24%
P/B Ratio
3.3
Total Holdings
476
Average Market Cap
$33 billion
Expense Ratio
0.7%
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
MARKET INDEXES
7.5
S&P 500 INDEX This market capitalization index tracks 500 of the largest U.S. stocks, representing 88 separate industries; prior to 1957, it consisted of 90 stocks. S&P 500 Index (1995-2009) 1995
37.6%
1998
28.6%
2001
-11.9%
2004
10.9%
2007
5.5%
1996
23.0%
1999
21.0%
2002
-22.1%
2005
4.9%
2008
-37.0%
1997
33.4%
2000
-9.1%
2003
28.7%
2006
15.8%
2009
26.5%
IVV matches returns of large U.S. stocks, as measured by the S&P 500. The ETFâ€&#x;s total valuation is $23 billion; its top five stocks are: Exxon Mobil (3.0%), Microsoft (2.1%), Apple (2.0%), GE (1.9%) and Procter & Gamble (1.7%). Its top 10 holdings represent 19% of the portfolio. Sector Weightings (3-2010) Information Technology
19%
Energy
11%
Materials
3%
Financials
16%
Industrials
10%
Utilities
3%
Health Care
12%
Consumer Discretionary
10%
Telecom
3%
Consumer Staples
11%
Performance History (12-31-2009) 2009
3 Year
5 Year
10 Year
ETF
26.4%
-5.6%
0.4%
n/a
Index
26.5%
-5.6%
0.4%
-1.0%
Fundamentals and ETF Profile (3-2010) Inception (symbol: IVV)
5/2000
Beta
1.0
Standard Deviation (3 year)
20%
30-Day SEC Yield
1.9%
P/E Ratio
20
Largest Sector (info tech.)
19%
P/B Ratio
3.5
Total Holdings
500
Average Market Cap
$33 billion
Expense Ratio
0.09%
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
MARKET INDEXES
7.6
S&P 500 GROWTH INDEX This market capitalization index tracks 306 of the largest U.S. growth stocks, as measured by the S&P 500/Citigroup Growth Index, which equals 49% of the S&P 500‟s market capitalization. S&P 500 Growth Index (1995-2009) 1995
38.1%
1998
42.2%
2001
-12.7%
2004
6.1%
2007
9.1%
1996
24.0%
1999
28.2%
2002
-23.6%
2005
4.0%
2008
-34.9%
1997
36.5%
2000
-22.1%
2003
25.7%
2006
11.0%
2009
31.6%
IVW seeks to match returns of large U.S. growth stocks, based on the S&P 500/Citigroup Growth Index. The ETF‟s total valuation is $4.0 billion; its top five stocks are: Microsoft (4.3%), Apple (4.0%), IBM (3.2%), Exxon Mobile (3.2%) and Cisco (2.9%). The top 10 holdings of this ETF represent 29% of the portfolio. Sector Weightings (3-2010) Information Technology
32%
Consumer Discretionary
9%
Materials
4%
Health Care
13%
Industrials
9%
Telecom
2%
Energy
11%
Financials
7%
Utilities
½%
Consumer Staples
10%
Performance History (12-31-2009) 2009
3 Year
5 Year
10 Year
ETF
31.3%
-2.3%
1.3%
n/a
Index
31.6%
-2.2%
1.5%
n/a
Fundamentals and ETF Profile (3-2010) Inception (symbol: IVE)
5/2000
Beta
0.9
Standard Deviation (3 year)
19%
30-Day SEC Yield
1.4%
P/E Ratio
22
Largest Sector (info tech)
32%
P/B Ratio
4.5
Total Holdings
307
Average Market Cap
$87 billion
Expense Ratio
0.18%
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
MARKET INDEXES
7.7
S&P 500 VALUE INDEX This market capitalization index tracks 347 large U.S. value stocks, represented by the S&P 500/Citigroup Value Index, which equals 51% of the S&P 500‟s market capitalization. S&P 500 Value Index (1995-2009) 1995
36.0%
1998
14.7%
2001
-11.7%
2004
15.7%
2007
2.0%
1996
22.0%
1999
12.7%
2002
-20.9%
2005
5.8%
2008
-39.2%
1997
28.9%
2000
6.1%
2003
31.8%
2006
20.8%
2009
21.2%
IVE matches returns of U.S. large cap value stocks, as represented by the S&P 500/Citigroup Value Index. The ETF‟s total valuation is $4.0 billion. The index‟s top five stocks are: GE (3.7%), Bank of America (3.4%), JP Morgan Chase (3.4%), Wells Fargo (3.0%) and Chevron (2.8%). The top 10 holdings represent 28% of the portfolio. Sector Weightings (3-2010) Financials
26%
Health Care
11%
Info Tech
6%
Consumer Staples
12%
Energy
10%
Telecom
4%
Industrials
12%
Utilities
6%
Materials
2%
Consumer Discretionary
11%
Performance History (12-31-2009) 2009
3 Year
5 Year
10 Year
ETF
21.7%
-9.2%
-0.9%
n/a
Index
21.2%
-9.1%
-0.8%
n/a
Fundamentals and ETF Profile (3-2010) Inception (symbol: IVE)
5/2000
Beta
1.1
Standard Deviation (3 year)
22%
30-Day SEC Yield
2.2%
P/E Ratio
18
Largest Sector (financials)
26%
P/B Ratio
2.5
Total Holdings
350
Average Market Cap
$77 billion
Expense Ratio
0.18%
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
MARKET INDEXES
7.8
RUSSELL 2000 VALUE INDEX Russell 2000 Value Index measures returns of U.S. small value stocks and it is a subset of the Russell 2000 Index; it is capitalization weighted, comprised of 1,400 stocks with an average market capitalization of $950 million. The indexâ€&#x;s total market capitalization is 740 billion. The index represents 50% of the Russell 2000 Indexâ€&#x;s total market capitalization. Russell 2000 Value Index (1995-2009) 1995
25.7%
1998
-6.5%
2001
14.0%
2004
22.3%
2007
-9.8%
1996
21.4%
1999
-1.5%
2002
-11.4%
2005
4.7%
2008
-28.9%
1997
31.8%
2000
22.8%
2003
46.0%
2006
23.5%
2009
20.6%
IWN seeks to match returns of small cap domestic value stocks; its total valuation is $4.3 billion. Each of its top five stocks (Domtar, E*Trade, Developers Diversified Realty, Assured Guaranty and Highwoods Properties) has a weighting in the 0.5% range. Top 6 Sector Weightings (3-2010) Financial Services
26%
Materials & Processing
9%
Consumer Discretionary
13%
Technology
9%
Producer Durables
12%
Utilities
6%
Performance History (12-31-2009) 2009
3 Year
5 Year
10 Year
ETF
20.4%
-8.2%
-0.1%
n/a
Index
20.6%
-8.2%
0.0 %
8.3%
Fundamentals and ETF Profile (3-2010) Inception (symbol: IWN)
7/2000
Beta
1.3
Standard Deviation (3 year)
26%
30-Day SEC Yield
2.3%
P/E Ratio
24
Largest Sector (financials)
33%
P/B Ratio
1.7
Total Holdings
1,400
Average Market Cap
$950 million
Expense Ratio
0.33%
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
MARKET INDEXES
7.9
RUSSELL 2000 GROWTH INDEX Russell 2000 Value Index measures returns of U.S. small cap growth stocks; it is a subset of the Russell 2000 Index. This index is comprised of 1,275 stocks with an average market capitalization of $5.5 billion; its total market capitalization is $750 billion. The index represents 50% of Russell 2000 Index‟s market capitalization. Russell 2000 Growth Index (1995-2009) 1995
31.0%
1998
1.2%
2001
-9.2%
2004
14.3%
2007
7.0%
1996
11.3%
1999
43.1%
2002
-30.3%
2005
4.1%
2008
-38.5%
1997
12.8%
2000
-22.4%
2003
48.5%
2006
13.3%
2009
34.5%
IWO seeks to match returns of small cap U.S. growth stocks. The ETF‟s total valuation is $3.5 billion; its top five stocks are: Human Genome Sciences (1.1%), UAL (0.6%), Tupperware (0.6%), Solera (0.6%) and Skyworks Solutions (0.5%). Top 6 Sector Weightings (3-2010) Health Care
24%
Producer Durables
9%
Technology
23%
Financial Services
7%
Consumer Discretionary
19%
Materials & Processing
4%
Performance History (12-31-2009) 2009
3 Year
5 Year
10 Year
ETF
34.4%
-4.0%
0.8%
n/a
Index
34.5%
-4.0%
0.9 %
-1.4%
Fundamentals and ETF Profile (3-2010) Inception (symbol: IWO)
7/2000
Beta
1.1
Standard Deviation (3 year)
25%
30-Day SEC Yield
0.7%
P/E Ratio
29
Largest Sector (financials)
33%
P/B Ratio
4.3
Total Holdings
1,285
Average Market Cap
$1.1 billion
Expense Ratio
0.25%
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
MARKET INDEXES
7.10
RUSSELL 2000 INDEX Russell 2000 Index measures returns of U.S. small cap stocks; the index has 2,007 stocks an average market capitalization of $1.0 billion; total market capitalization is $1.1 trillion. Russell 2000 Index (1995-2009) 1995
28.4%
1998
-2.6%
2001
2.5%
2004
14.3%
2007
-1.6%
1996
18.5%
1999
21.4%
2002
-20.5%
2005
4.5%
2008
-33.8%
1997
13.0%
2000
-3.0%
2003
47.2%
2006
18.4%
2009
27.2%
IWM seeks to match returns of small cap U.S. growth stocks. The ETFâ€&#x;s total valuation is $13.1 billion; its top five stocks are: Human Genome Sciences (0.5%), UAL (0.3%), Tupperware (0.3%), 3Com (0.3%) and Assured Guaranty (0.3%). Top 6 Sector Weightings (3-2010) Financial Services
21%
Health Care
14%
Technology
16%
Producer Durables
11%
Consumer Discretionary
16%
Materials & Processing
7%
Performance History (12-31-2009) 2009
3 Year
5 Year
10 Year
ETF
27.2%
-6.0%
0.5%
n/a
Index
27.2%
-6.1%
0.5%
3.5%
Fundamentals and ETF Profile (3-2010) Inception (symbol: IWM)
5/2000
Beta
1.2
Standard Deviation (3 year)
25%
30-Day SEC Yield
1.6%
P/E Ratio
26
Largest Sector (financials)
21%
P/B Ratio
1.2
Total Holdings
2,007
Average Market Cap
$1.0 billion
Expense Ratio
0.24%
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
MARKET INDEXES
7.11
S&P 400 MIDCAP INDEX The S&P 400 Midcap Index measures returns of U.S. mid cap stocks; it is cap weighted. Stocks in the index are valued at $1-$4 billion. The indexâ€&#x;s total market capitalization is $955 billion. S&P 400 Midcap Index (1995-2009) 1995
31.0%
1998
19.1%
2001
-0.6%
2004
16.5%
2007
8.0%
1996
19.2%
1999
14.7%
2002
-14.5%
2005
12.6%
2008
-36.2%
1997
32.2%
2000
17.5%
2003
35.6%
2006
10.3%
2009
37.4%
IJH matches returns of U.S. mid cap stocks; its total valuation is $7.7 billion. Top five stocks are: Vertex Pharmaceutical (0.8%), Cree (0.8%), Newfield Exploration (0.7%), New York Community Bancorp (0.7%) and Lubrizoil (0.6%). Top 6 Sector Weightings (3-2010) Financial Services
20%
Industrials
14%
Information Technology
15%
Health Care
13%
Consumer Discretionary
15%
Materials
7%
Performance History (12-31-2009) 2009
3 Year
5 Year
10 Year
ETF
37.2%
-1.9%
3.2%
n/a
Index
37.4%
-1.8%
3.3%
6.4%
Fundamentals and ETF Profile (3-2010) Inception (symbol: IJH)
5/2000
Beta
1.1
Standard Deviation (3 year)
24%
30-Day SEC Yield
1.3%
P/E Ratio
26
Largest Sector (financials)
20%
P/B Ratio
2.8
Total Holdings
770
Average Market Cap
$3.0 billion
Expense Ratio
0.21%
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
MARKET INDEXES
7.12
DOW JONES U.S. UTILITIES SECTOR INDEX DJ U.S. Utilities Sector Index measures returns of utilities. It is cap weighted and represents 75 utilities; its total market capitalization is $4.7 billion. Dow Jones U.S. Utilities Sector Index (2001-2009) 2001
-26.2%
2004
24.0%
2007
17.8%
2002
-21.2%
2005
15.3%
2008
-30.3%
2003
24.9%
2006
21.3%
2009
12.6%
IDU matches returns of the DJ U.S. Utility Index; total valuation is $460 million. The top five holdings are: Exelon (6.5%), Southern Company (6.0%), Dominion Resources (5.5%), Duke Energy (4.7%) and FLP Group (4.1%). Sector Weightings (3-2010) Electricity
71%
Gas, Water & Multiutilities
28%
Other
1%
Performance History (12-31-2009) 2009
3 Year
5 Year
10 Year
ETF
12.2%
-2.9%
4.8%
n/a
Index
12.6%
-2.6%
5.3 %
n/a
Fundamentals and ETF Profile (3-2010) Inception (symbol: IDU)
6/2000
Beta
0.4
Standard Deviation (3 year)
18%
30-Day SEC Yield
3.9%
P/E Ratio
15
Largest Sector (financials)
19%
P/B Ratio
1.5
Total Holdings
75
Average Market Cap
$14 billion
Expense Ratio
0.48%
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
MARKET INDEXES
7.13
DOW JONES U.S. REAL ESTATE INDEX DJ U.S. Real Estate Index measures real estate industry returns; it is cap weighted and represents 75 REITs. The index‟s total market capitalization is $261 billion. Dow Jones U.S. Real Estate Index (2001-2009) 2001
11.8%
2004
31.2%
2007
18.2%
2002
3.6%
2005
9.6%
2008
-40.1%
2003
36.9%
2006
35.5%
2009
30.8%
IYR seeks to match returns, before fees, of the U.S. real estate sector. The ETF‟s total valuation is $2.8 billion. The top 10 holdings make up 41% of fund assets; the top five holdings are: Simon Property Group (8.7%), Vornado Realty (4.9%), Public Storage (4.3%), Equity Residential (3.9%) and Boston Properties (3.8%). Top 6 Sector Weightings (3-2010) Industrial and Office REITs
25%
Hotels & Lodging REITs
6%
Retail REITs
21%
Mortgage REITs
6%
Residential REITs
13%
Holding & Development REITs
3%
Performance History (12-31-2009) 2009
3 Year
5 Year
10 Year
ETF
30.1%
-13.9%
-1.2%
n/a
Index
30.8%
-13.8%
-1.0 %
n/a
Fundamentals and ETF Profile (3-2010) Inception (symbol: IYR)
6/2000
Beta
1.7
Standard Deviation (3 year)
38%
30-Day SEC Yield
25%
P/E Ratio
41
Largest Sector
19%
P/B Ratio
2.3
Total Holdings
76
Average Market Cap
$7.0 billion
Expense Ratio
0.48%
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
MARKET INDEXES
7.14
MSCI ALL COUNTRY WORLD INDEX The MSCI ACWI Index Fund is a benchmark for global stocks. This cap weighted index captures 85% of the world‟s total market capitalization. It is comprised of 2,423 different securities. MSCI ACWI Index (1996-2009) 1995
n/a
1998
22.0%
2001
-15.9%
2004
15.7%
2007
11.8%
1996
13.0%
1999
26.8%
2002
-19.0%
2005
11.4%
2008
-42.2%
1997
15.0%
2000
-13.9%
2003
34.6%
2006
21.5%
2009
34.6%
The Vanguard Global Equity Fund (VHGEX) invests in U.S. (41%) and foreign stocks (59%); it covers well-established and still-developing markets. The mutual fund is comprised of 790 stocks; the 10 largest holdings represent 10% of the $3.7 billion fund. The fund is actively managed and seeks to outperform its bench-mark, the MSCI ACWI Index. The fund‟s five largest holdings are: Royal Dutch Petroleum, Pfizer, SanofiAventis, Cablevision Systems and Exxon Mobil. Top 6 Sector Weightings (3-2010) Financials
21%
Industrials
10%
Information Technology
12%
Health Care
10%
Energy
11%
Consumer Discretionary
9%
Performance History (12-31-2009) 2009
3 Year
5 Year
10 Year
Fund
33.0%
2.7%
1.8%
5.6%
Index
34.6%
-4.6%
3.3 %
0.7%
Fundamentals and Fund Profile (3-2010) Inception (symbol: VHGEX)
6/2008
Beta
1.1
Standard Deviation (3 year)
n/a
30-Day SEC Yield
n/a
P/E Ratio
22
Largest Sector (financials)
21%
P/B Ratio
1.9
Total Holdings
790
Median Market Cap
$15 billion
Expense Ratio
0.35% QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
MARKET INDEXES
7.15
MSCI EAFE VALUE INDEX MSCI EAFE Value Index Fund is a benchmark for foreign large cap value stocks. This capitalization-weighted index is comprised of 524 securities and is designed to capture 50% of the total market capitalization of the MSCI EAFE Index. The value index has a total market capitalization of $7.3 trillion. MSCI EAFE Value Index (2006-2009) 2004
n/a
2007
6.0%
2005
n/a
2008
-44.1%
2006
30.4%
2009
34.2%
EFV seeks to match returns of the Morgan Stanley EAFE Value Index. The ETFâ€&#x;s total valuation is $1.4 billion. Its top five holdings are: HSBC Holdings (4.0%), BP (3.5%), Total (2.5%), Vodafone (2.4%) and Toyota (2.3%). The 10 largest countries represent 11% of the portfolio. The top five countries are: Japan (23%), U.K. (21%), France (13%), Germany (9%) and Australia (9%). Top 6 Sector Weightings (3-2010) Financials
36%
Utilities
9%
Energy
12%
Telecom Services
8%
Industrials
11%
Consumer Discretionary
7%
Performance History (12-31-2009) 2009
3 Year
5 Year
10 Year
ETF
33.8%
-7.4%
n/a
n/a
Index
34.2%
-7.4%
3.4%
n/a
Fundamentals and ETF Profile (3-2010) Inception (symbol: EFV)
8/2005
Beta
1.3
Standard Deviation (3 year)
26
30-Day SEC Yield
0.8%
P/E Ratio
21
Largest Sector (financials)
36%
P/B Ratio
1.5
Total Holdings
515
Average Market Cap
$60 billion
Expense Ratio
0.40% QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
MARKET INDEXES
7.16
THE CASE FOR MID CAPS The vast majority of advisors and planners do not include mid cap stocks in client portfolios. Yet, the case for mid caps is strong, as shown in the table below (note: + represents when mid caps (S&P 400) outperformed large caps (S&P 500).
S&P 500 vs. S&P 400: Total Returns [1995-2009]
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
S&P 500 vs. S&P 400 37.6 / 31.0 23.0 / 19.2 33.4 / 32.2 28.6 / 19.1 21.0 / 14.7 -9.1 / 17.5 -11.9 / -0.6 -22.1 / -14.5 28.7 / 35.6 10.9 / 16.5 4.9 / 12.6 15.8 / 10.3 5.5 / 8.0 -37.0 / -36.2 26.5 / 37.4
5-Year Annualized
+ + + + + + + + + +
20.3 / 17.8% 24.1 / 18.8 28.6 / 23.0 18.3 / 20.4 10.7 / 16.1 -0.6 / 6.1 -0.6 / 9.2 -2.3 / 9.5 0.5 / 8.6 6.2 / 10.9 12.8 / 16.2 -2.2 / -0.1 0.4 / 3.3
10-Year Annualized
+ + + + + + + + + +
9.3 / 12.0% 11.1 / 13.9 12.1 / 16.1 9.1 / 14.4 8.4 / 13.5 5.9 / 11.2 -1.4 / 4.5 -1.0 / 6.5
15-Year Annualized
+ + + + + + + +
10.5 / 13.4 6.5 / 9.0 8.0 / 11.7
+ + +
DECADE RETURNS FOR U.S. STOCKS [1830S-2000S] ADDED TO CFS
5/2010
1830s
2.8%
1880s
6.0%
1930s
-0.2%
1980s
16.6%
1840s
12.8%
1890s
5.5%
1940s
9.6%
1990s
17.6%
1850s
6.6%
1900s
10.9%
1950s
18.2%
2000s
-0.5%
1860s
12.5%
1910s
2.2%
1960s
8.3%
1870s
7.5%
1920s
13.3%
1970s
6.6%
source: Yale International Center for Finance
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES
MARKET INDEXES
7.17
Unit investment trusts (UITs) may be the least understood, and certainly least utilized, of all of the US registered investment companies. As of December 31, 2008, according to the 2009 Investment Company Fact Book, assets in US registered investment companies were as follows: Open-End Funds (Mutual Funds) $9.6 trillion in 8022 funds Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) $531 billion in 728 funds Closed-End Funds (CEFs) $188 billion in 646 Unit Investment Trusts (UITs) $28.5 billion in 5,984 trusts
BUFFET TRACK RECORD Over the past 45 years (1965-2009), Berkshire Hathaway stock had an annualized return of 22%; the two closest mutual funds were Fidelity Magellan (16.3%) and Templeton Growth (13.4%). A $10,000 investment made in Berkshire on October 1st, 1964 grew to $80 million by March 2010 ($9.1 million for Magellan and $2.9 million for Templeton).
PAST IS NOT A PREDICTOR A 2009 study by Fama (University of Chicago) and French (Dartmouth) ran 10,000 simulations as to what investors could expect from actively managed funds. The results were that, outside the top 3% of funds, active management lags behind the results that would be obtained due simply to chance.
QUARTERLY UPDATES
IBF | GRADUATE SERIES