Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Broad Based ETFs
There were a couple of comments on the ETF Portfolio post that expressed preference for broad based ETFs as the core of their portfolio. Obviously this is valid but not ideal for me.
It might be worthwhile to explore the down side, if there really is one, for the broad based products. First, how much of a portfolio is the core? I don't really construct portfolios this way but I think the amount that is core is very subjective so I'll just pick 50%. If this makes no sense, sorry but the number is not really the focus of this post.
Maybe the core could be three funds as follows;
iShares Russell 1000 (IWB) 15%
iShares S&P 600 Small Cap Value (IJS) 15%
PowerShares Intl Div (PID) 20% this is the first foreign DVY
OK, now what?
Well given my belief in gold as a diversifier I would want some GLD as a permanent fixture as well, how much though? I have in the neighborhood of 3% in gold I have read other opinion that says 5-10%. How about 5% for easier math?
So now 55% of the portfolio is allocated.
I am a firm believer in emerging markets as an asset class that should always have some weight in a portfolio. For me, 7% is equal weight but let's just go with 5% for now.
At this point we are up to 60% of the portfolio allocated.
A reasonable idea might be to select a couple of sectors that should do well in the current environment. Today that could mean staples, health and utilities? So perhaps 5% in an ETF for each? Or should it be 10% in each? This, for me, is where problems start to occur. The various sector weightings can get out of whack in a hurry. The decision made right here will result in being very overweight some sectors and very underweight others.
Utilities make up 3.4% of the S%P 500. The 15% allocation to IWB gives you 1.1% overall in utilities, IJS gives another 1.2% overall to utilities, PID gives another 1.8% overall. At this point you are already overweight an interest rate sensitive sector at a time that the middle of the curve could start to go up and hurt prices in the sector. Adding even 5% to a utilities ETF becomes a big bet and I haven't even looked at the emerging market ETF to check for utilities.
Would you add a single country ETF? Many of them are heavy in financials. It is likely you will end up very overweight that sector. The number of portfolios I look at that are unknowingly 30% weighted to financials is very high.
I find it much easier to think of the 10 sectors that make up the market and then to build each sector with the best proxies for those sectors that I can find. Sticking with ETFs (though not my preference for portfolios) and the financial sector it seems easier to start with a sector ETF for a big chunk of the exposure. If you want 15% in financials (this is an underweight) you could put 8% of your portfolio in something like the Financial Sector SPDR (XLF). Perhaps 2% of the portfolio could go into one of the capital markets ETFs and the rest of the sector can come from specialized ETFs. EWA (personal holding) has 47% in financials, iShares Canada has 33% in financials and EEM has 19% in financials.
To me this seems like an easier way to build a portfolio. This can also be an easier way to build in style, yield and beta and average cap size can be managed at the margin with a mega cap ETF like Rydex' XLG or a micro cap ETF like the iShares fund, IWC.
Let the debate begin.
It might be worthwhile to explore the down side, if there really is one, for the broad based products. First, how much of a portfolio is the core? I don't really construct portfolios this way but I think the amount that is core is very subjective so I'll just pick 50%. If this makes no sense, sorry but the number is not really the focus of this post.
Maybe the core could be three funds as follows;
iShares Russell 1000 (IWB) 15%
iShares S&P 600 Small Cap Value (IJS) 15%
PowerShares Intl Div (PID) 20% this is the first foreign DVY
OK, now what?
Well given my belief in gold as a diversifier I would want some GLD as a permanent fixture as well, how much though? I have in the neighborhood of 3% in gold I have read other opinion that says 5-10%. How about 5% for easier math?
So now 55% of the portfolio is allocated.
I am a firm believer in emerging markets as an asset class that should always have some weight in a portfolio. For me, 7% is equal weight but let's just go with 5% for now.
At this point we are up to 60% of the portfolio allocated.
A reasonable idea might be to select a couple of sectors that should do well in the current environment. Today that could mean staples, health and utilities? So perhaps 5% in an ETF for each? Or should it be 10% in each? This, for me, is where problems start to occur. The various sector weightings can get out of whack in a hurry. The decision made right here will result in being very overweight some sectors and very underweight others.
Utilities make up 3.4% of the S%P 500. The 15% allocation to IWB gives you 1.1% overall in utilities, IJS gives another 1.2% overall to utilities, PID gives another 1.8% overall. At this point you are already overweight an interest rate sensitive sector at a time that the middle of the curve could start to go up and hurt prices in the sector. Adding even 5% to a utilities ETF becomes a big bet and I haven't even looked at the emerging market ETF to check for utilities.
Would you add a single country ETF? Many of them are heavy in financials. It is likely you will end up very overweight that sector. The number of portfolios I look at that are unknowingly 30% weighted to financials is very high.
I find it much easier to think of the 10 sectors that make up the market and then to build each sector with the best proxies for those sectors that I can find. Sticking with ETFs (though not my preference for portfolios) and the financial sector it seems easier to start with a sector ETF for a big chunk of the exposure. If you want 15% in financials (this is an underweight) you could put 8% of your portfolio in something like the Financial Sector SPDR (XLF). Perhaps 2% of the portfolio could go into one of the capital markets ETFs and the rest of the sector can come from specialized ETFs. EWA (personal holding) has 47% in financials, iShares Canada has 33% in financials and EEM has 19% in financials.
To me this seems like an easier way to build a portfolio. This can also be an easier way to build in style, yield and beta and average cap size can be managed at the margin with a mega cap ETF like Rydex' XLG or a micro cap ETF like the iShares fund, IWC.
Let the debate begin.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)





7 comments:
I would substitute one of the new Wisdom Tree funds for the PID, probably their DTH which (according to their data) has 4.9% yield.
I'm a regular reader of your blog btw, keep up the good work!
I don't know if DTH is better or not but more importantly the comment introduces the better mousetrap idea.
I'm not inclined to be the first one into a brand new ETF that is a differnt version of an existing theme but DTH could turn out to be much better than PID.
Staying in touch with is very important.
I too would like to encourage Roger's commentary. Under the hood of these etf's needs more daylight, and Roger is helpful. I've recently been reading a quarterly published for a fee, but their website ,free, is informative. (I am a paying consumer and will in no way benefit)...There is news about more currency etfs.
http://www.indexuniverse.com/index.php?section=6
I notice that you have not mentioned US vs International in your sector exposure. Would a etf having 40% financials (or industrials) in a specific country have the same risk as an international based etf. Are we comparing apples to apples or apples to oranges? Tom in Indy
I just clicked over to Jay Walkers blog and he wrote about using the Kelly Criterion to determine the quantitative amount of exposure to the different sectors. That is some pretty neat stuff. What would be the edge/odds for an etf? The historic yield? In my previous question about international vs domestic sectors of the market, risk (volatility) vs. yield seems to be the means that that you can decide if investing in a specific country is worth it or not. I am learning a lot by going through these mental gymnatics. Tom in Indy
to answer Tom's question, or try to;
actually I don't understand. The way I look at it I want to have x% in each sector and I want to have x% in foreign. If I have to use more ETFs I have to be more flexible on the numbers and be willing to only get close (this is another reasn to prefer stocks where possible).
In doing this I need to look under the hood at all the ETFs I would consider to build a portfolio. Morningstar is a big help here.
I don't know if that answers it or not.
I'm not sure what would be the edge/odds would be for a foreign ETF but yield doesn't seem like it but I may be wrong. THat is a new one to me, I have to say.
Thanks Roger,
Over time,when the market falls, I have to fight the desire to tinker with what I have invested. I have reinvested some of my more risky etf positions into less volatile stocks that have returns. I will look up my Etf's in Morningstar and see if they are really doing what I think they should be doing. My learning curve keeps getting longer. Tom in Indy
Post a Comment