chamois16

Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
comments31
  • Positive ratings +2
  • Negative ratings -1
  • Net rating +1 or 66 %
Filter comments by:
Highest rated Latest comments
Or filter by symbol:

Latest Comments
31 Comments

    • Thu Apr 19th 09:53 AM
      |
      Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      New ETF Will Track Natural Gas Price
      The way I read the prospectus, it is a commodity limited partnership and not an ETF. An ETF according to the SEC is an open-end investment company regulated by ICA 1940. The UNG prospectus say it is not an investment company and not subject to the ICA.

      "USNG is not a mutual fund registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and is not subject to regulation under such Act."
      View article »
    • Thu Apr 19th 09:30 AM
      |
      Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Natural Gas ETF Launches; A Natural Gas Primer
      How can UNG be considered an ETF, which by SEC definition is an open-end investment company regulated by The Investment Company Act 1940, when the prospectus says otherwise:

      ?USNG is not a mutual fund registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and is not subject to regulation under such Act."
      View article »
    • Wed Feb 28th 13:26 PM
      |
      Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Emerging Markets ETFs: Predictable and Consistent
      Volatility, common to emerging markets, is not a reason to exclude individual securities, including ETF; longer term performance of all these funds you mention, with the possible exception of PGJ, which at best is a managed fund in drag, exceeds that of most developed markets. They had become overbought, but still represent long term value, particularly after correction

      Excess volatility at the portfolio level is to be avoided since it represents risk, but a properly diversified portfolio will handle, and benefit from, emerging market stocks and index funds.
      View article »
    • Thu Feb 1st 09:09 AM
      |
      Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Get Ready for the Chinese Bubble to Burst
      I don't believe the Shanghai and Shenzhen markets are the right metric for non PRC-resident investors in measuring bubbles or time lines. Most of us own H-shares and Red Chips traded in Hong Kong or as ADRs in NY. The market price correlations between mainland exchanges and those used by US retail investors do not correlate well, nor are the underlying fundamentals of companies listed each, the same.

      One getrs an entirely different picture comparing corporate P/E and PEGs in markets catering to different investor groups. Certainly some good Chinese stocks became overbought, eg China Life, and are in the process of correcting, but to suggest that FXI and many of its components are in a bubble, without presenting rationale as to why, seems unfair.
      View article »
    • Mon Jan 29th 12:53 PM
      |
      Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Eaton Vance Enhanced Equity Fund: A Different Way to Extract Extra Yield
      "The fund has dished out a $0.144 per share dividend every month since March 2005. That equates to an annual payout of $1.73 per share, which gives the stock a yield of 8.6% at today's share price. EOS also carries a management expense ratio of 1.07%, which trims a little off your return."

      Once again, published distribution numbers and yields are net of fund expenses.
      View article »
    • Sun Jan 28th 11:32 AM
      |
      Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      New Infrastructure ETF From SSGA: A Closer Look
      Good article, Richard, but surely you consider Hong Kong part of China! My hangup with the MacQ 100 Index is that it largely a utility index and thus somewhat redundant to other CEF/ETF in that space. Also redundant is some respects to MLP and Trust funds such as FMO, KYN, BGR et al

      The new SSGA fund though is a serious contender for many portfolios; thanks for highlighting its inception!
      View article »
    • Thu Jan 25th 12:24 PM
      |
      Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Bad Time To Invest In Mainland China?
      Most of us (non PRC) can't buy A shares anyway. Plenty of H shares trading NYSE as ADR and there's always the iShares FXI. I haven't seen any peruasive rationale that H-shares in general are overheated, given the current growth in the mainland economy. Some individual mainland companies are obviously overbought, but that's true in most any market
      View article »
    • Fri Dec 29th 18:26 PM
      |
      Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Comparing China's Two Oil Giants
      The commentary implies that PTR and SNP are similar oil companies, which can be compared statistically. This is not true. PTR is an integrated oil and gas company with dominant E&P in both natural gas and oil, plus ownership of the infrastructure pipelines. SNP, on the other hand is a refiner and retailer which must purchase the majority of its crude.

      SNP, because it is squeezed by price controls on retail sales of refined products and higher crude prices, currently receives a subsidy from the central government. PTR does not.

      PTR's NG production is expanding rapidly, and the PRC is pushing for transition from coal to NG for environmental reasons. PTR, which also retails petrol(gasoline) and gasoil (diesel) and has a near monopoly on land based exploration, not only in China but in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, would seem to have the higher growth potential. Both are good companies, as is CNOOC (CEO) as well, but they are not all apples for comparative purposes.
      View article »
    • Fri Nov 17th 19:15 PM
      |
      Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      H&Q Life Science: Hold On, Its Time Is Coming
      HQL may or not be a good investment in the future; it has been a very poor one this past year. I haven't heard or read any credible, persuasive rationale for why biotech or healthcare will, on a net basis, dramatically improve as a profitable business; there will be technological winners and losers, particularly in HQL, which is sort of a VC endeavor with more risk. Increased emphasis on R&D, as is often alleged, is apt to be offset by proposed reductions in patent protection and allowable prices charged, plus increases in corporate taxes. The net consequence is a great unknown.

      More importantly, the Fink article fuzzes some issues of importance. The 8% yield is lauded, for example, even when it comes totally at the expense of capital appreciation. Iow, the fund must sell its winners to pay the distribution with proceeds from realized capital gains. If there is to be a resurgence in biotech and the investor wants to take full measure of that growth, truncating it for taxable current "income" doesn't make a lot of sense. Far better would be a fund which allows the winners to appreciate unharvested, at the expense of much lower payouts.

      CEF like HQL cater to income oriented investors who, as has been mentioned earlier, subordinate total return opportunity to currrent gratification or need. This is particularly true on an after tax basis. They need to be valued in that context
      View article »
    • Sat Nov 11th 10:45 AM
      |
      Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      A Long/Short ETF Portfolio For Emerging Markets
      IF one wanted to do this, there are closed-end funds for India, Indonesia and Turkey that are as good and perhaps better vehicles than index funds, were such available. Going short in any of these places is very risky. I certainly would not attempt it on the basis of current account deficits
      View article »
    • Thu Nov 9th 09:20 AM
      |
      Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Alpine Global Dynamic Dividend Fund: Solid Low-Risk Strategy
      The distribution and distribution yield are net of management fees. All closed-end funds initially trade at a premium to NAV because of the offering concession to underwriters. Most equity based funds eventually trade at a discount to offset management fees; ETG and ETO, which also exploit dividend capture strategies, are examples.

      Experienced CEF investors wait until the market price has stabilized at a lower level relative to NAV, usually 120-200 days after IPO. The Haas Business School at UCBerkeley has a study explaining why this discount is normal, how it is computed and how long it takes to stabilize: faculty.haas.berkeley....
      View article »
    • Sun Nov 5th 07:26 AM
      |
      Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Further Thoughts On Call-Writing Closed-end Funds (BEP, FFA, IGD, JPZ, JSN, MCN, NFJ)
      I'm not an options expert, but believe some of the basic premises in the argument are false. Options do not need to be priced inefficiently to "earn" a total return above the distributions; one does not need to rebuy the original stocks called away, and many CEF deal in index options, which are settled in cash when exercised, rather than by the exchange of shares. Strike prices, as has been mentioned, can be set to reflect targets.

      The options writing CEF I follow have done as well as, or better than, expected, with NAV total returns well in excess of total distributions. NAI, for example, about twice as well in NAV total return with an NAV gain of over 10% net of distributions.

      To debate whether the distributions are true dividends, if I understand the comment, is somewhat moot, since they are not dividends as defined by the ICA 1940, the SEC or GAAP, when portions include capital gains a/o other return of capital. Only in tax terminology can distributions be considered dividends and then not always.

      I believe that whether a CEF makes sense or not as a concept depends largely on management. In this case, it probably depends more on the options advisor than on the stockpicker, usually separate teams.
      View article »
    • Fri Nov 3rd 10:05 AM
      |
      Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Shifting Away From the U.S. and Into Asia: An ETF Play
      The chinese yuan is not pegged to the US$; it was floated commencing 21 July 2005 and has risen slowly since. The Hong Kong Dollar is more closely tied to the US dollar

      The writer seems to ignore arguably the best ETF to play a rising yuan (FXI) which consists mainly of robust mainland China companies (25 in all) whose earnngs and dividends are initially denominated in renminbi, rather than HK$, thus likely to pass along to HK and US ADR holders greater benefit than HK and other Asian shares.
      View article »
    • Thu Oct 19th 12:29 PM
      |
      Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      The Equities/Bond Balance In Perspective
      I agree. It is foolhardy to comment on anyone's asset allocation plan without knowing the person's circumstances. One third in bonds may well be too much. The real issue is whether those three ETF provide adequate diversification, not only among asset cleasses, but among stocks within each class.

      For someone who wants to buy and forget, it might not be a bad portfolio, recognizing the need to rebalance from time to time. I might pick EFA instead of EFV, but that's debatable as well
      View article »
    • Thu Oct 12th 10:47 AM
      |
      Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      The Case for Bonds, and the Problem With Bond ETFs
      Why are these two funds(MBDFX and HABDX) ~70% in cash rather than bonds?
      View article »