Archive for the ‘Not Classified’ Category

Market Shares of Leading ETF Sponsors

Monday, May 19th, 2008

The ETF market is looking crowded in terms of numbers and diversity of funds, and the number of ETF sponsors. However, the market shares are highly concentrated with a steep gradient of fund sizes and sponsor market shares.

As of April (according to score keeping by Vanguard) the top ETF sponsors by asset market share were:

#1 Barclays: 53.0%
(iShares & iPathETNs)
http://www.ishares.com
http://www.ipathetn.com

#2 State Street: 24.8% share
(SPDRs)
http://www.ssgafunds.com

#3 Vanguard: 8.0% share
(Vangurd)
http://www.vanguard.com

#4 Invesco: 6.5% share
(Power Shares)
http://www.invescopowershares.com

#5 ProFunds: 2.8% share
(ProShares)
http://www.proshares.com

#6 Merrill Lynch: 1.1% share
(Holders)
http://www.holdrs.com

#7 Rydex: 1.0% share
(Rydex Funds & Currency Shares)
http://www.rydexfunds.com
http://www.currencyshares.com

The top four sponsors have 92+% market share.  The top seven sponsors have 97+% share.  All the rest divide less than 3% between them.

Richard Shaw
QVM Group LLC

Importance of Major Asset Class Volatility Ranges

Monday, May 5th, 2008

Investors should think about volatility as well as mean returns when planning and analyzing their portfolios.

If we could remain investors for long periods, and did not need to take money out for any reason, then volatility would be of less concern. However, the shorter the time horizon for expected withdrawals, the more important volatility (return standard deviation) becomes.

Standard deviation is an important factor in the retiree question; “Can I outlive my money?”

Proper allocation among asset classes in light of volatility is a critical aspect of portfolio design for investors who have changed, or are about to change, life stages from accumulation of assets to consumption of assets.

combinedsd_3-5-10_0803b.jpg

Real world distribution of investment returns is not so perfectly symmetrical as in the diagram below, but that “normal” distribution “bell curve” is the basis of portfolio theory about volatility risk, measured by standard deviation of returns.

Actual distributions for overall markets tend to be somewhat biased more toward gains than losses, but all markets experience returns that vary over short periods from the mean return generated over long periods.

Nearly all historical and expected returns (99+%) fall within three standard deviations of the mean historical or expected return. However, lurking out there are the unknown and unpredictable market shocks (”Black Swans”) that can go out several more standard deviations.

An example of a Black Swan would include the 9/11 terror attack — something that was not predicted and not really predictable — something that takes markets entirely by surprise. They are few and generally far between, but powerful (and short?) when they occur.

To minimize the risk associated with Black Swans, diversification among high quality holdings within each asset class and diversification of among asset classes is important — never too many eggs in one basket.

sddistrib.jpg

While an index fund cannot outperform the market it tracks, there are many different markets. There is no single market, and no single investment product that covers all investment markets.

A selection of index funds for a variety of properly chosen markets representing different asset classes, can produce good long-term results.

For most but not all investors, funds are a better choice than individual securities. For many investors, index funds may be the best choice for asset class investments.

Index funds do not outperform their market, but they also do not underperform — and they almost always have a cost advantage that adds up over time.

A representative (but not exhaustive) list of index funds for the asset classes illustrated above is:

  • US Total Stocks: VTI, IWV and IYY
  • Foreign Developed Market Stocks: EFA and VEA
  • Foreign Emerging Market Stocks: EEM and VWO
  • US REITs: VNQ and IYR
  • Global Commodities: GSG and DJP
  • US Aggregate Bonds: AGG and BND

Richard Shaw
QVM Group LLC

No Home Sale Liquidity Problem in Connecticut

Tuesday, April 1st, 2008

Most press about the single family home market focuses on price levels or the number of sales.  Few if any, focus on “liquidity” as measured by the days on the market it takes to sell a house. 

House prices may be down and the number of new home sales (and perhaps existing home sales) may be down, but liquidity for homes seems to be OK in Connecticut.

This article shows that in Connecticut homes are selling in a reasonable length of time — that indicates there is liquidity for homes — banks appear to be providing mortgages and sellers are not “sitting” on unsold properties for long times. 

Prices may be down, but houses still trade fluidly for those willing to deal at market prices. 

The chart below shows that in the last twelve months nearly 10% of houses sold in 7 days, and 36% sold in 30 days.  Within 3 months, 70% were sold, and 91% were sold within 6 months.  By 1 year, 99% were sold.

ct_adom.jpg

Each state is different and Connecticut may be fortunate in its current condition. 

We don’t have access to similar information for other states.  However, as a Connecticut based investment advisor, we want to help clarify the situation for Connecticut investors, and perhaps encourage investment writers in other states to publish comparable data for their states.

Richard Shaw
QVM Group LLC