Short term bond ETFs – Watch out

As people start to randomly deploy their capital in February as they attempt to fill their RSPs, fixed income solutions are likely going to be the one-click target. One of them will be bond ETFs.

I’ve noticed some slick marketing that tends to mask probable future performance. For example, BMO has a short term corporate bond fund (TSX: ZCS) advertises a “portfolio yield” of 4.65%. 4.65% sounds very good in context of the risk-free rate of about 2% you can get elsewhere.

The only problem is that when you click on the Holdings page, the weighted average yield to maturity is 2.97%!

Very roughly, what this means is that investors will earn a cash yield of 4.65% (minus the 0.3% management expense fee), but will experience capital depreciation as the bonds approach maturity.

It is likely that fund marketing will concentrate on the yield figure, and completely mask more important numbers such as yield to maturity and duration. This is another technique used to mislead retail investors into thinking they are investing in a produce that is seemingly better than it actually will be.

Long term rates are climbing

Long term interest rates are beginning to climb again. The following is a chart of the 10-year US treasury note:

Rates touched 4% early in April 2010.

The Canadian 10-year bond is exhibiting the same characteristic, with yields up roughly 0.2% over the past week. Fixed income is being sold off and presumably rotated into equities and commodities.

Long term interest rate changes are a crucial variable concerning the pricing of equities and corporate debt simply because they are considered to be a risk-free comparison. With long bond yields rising, fixed rate mortgages will also become more expensive. Right now the best 5-year fixed rate you can obtain is around 3.65%, but this will likely be rising by a quarter point or so in the near future.

The only real defence against sharply increasing interest rates is holding cash or short-duration securities – almost everything else, including gold, will get hammered.

Dividends vs. Capital Gains

A post by Michael James (via Larry MacDonald) on the emotional benefits of dividend investing I thought was very well written.

Dividend issuance is not a valuation metric – although there is high correlation between companies that give out dividends and companies with good cash generation abilities, the issuance of dividends themselves does not cause the investment to be a good value. A company that previously did not declare dividends does not become more valuable the day after they announce dividends (although the market typically treats such announcements favourably in anticipation that dividend funds will increase demand on the stock).

When you isolate all other variables, there is no difference in investing in shares of a company worth $100/share that produces $10/year in earnings and selling $10 worth of shares each year versus that company issuing a $10 dividend each year.

Most dividend-bearing companies are stable simply because they have reached that point in the company’s maturity where they can give off cash without it being adverse to operations.

There are real-life subtle differences between dividends and capital gains which must be considered.

One is that there is a taxation difference between dividends and capital gains that must be considered in an investor’s risk profile – in Canada, lower income individuals would have a preference for dividends, while higher income individuals generally are indifferent. For example, using 2011’s BC tax brackets, a low income bracket individual will have a -9.4% marginal rate on eligible dividend income and a 10% marginal rate on capital gains. A high tax bracket individual will pay 23.9% on dividends and 21.9% on capital gains.

The other salient tax point is that you can choose to defer capital gains by not selling, while dividends have to be taken when declared by a company’s board of directors.

Another consideration is that cash in the hands of management is not equivalent to cash in the hands of an individual. If you believe management is more capable of investing cash, you would want them to retain as much of that capital for reinvestment as possible. If management gives out dividends, they are implicitly stating they are not capable of producing a market-beating return on that capital beyond what they have already invested.

You see this taking effect in companies when they declare large special dividends – the stock price usually increases by some amount because the market is implicitly stating that cash in the hands of management is worth less than the shareholders.

You can also use this to determine the competence of management – if management continues giving out more cash than the company can generate, it is a negative sign.

Ultimately what matters is the total market value of your portfolio increases over time, whether those returns are produced by capital appreciation or by income generation. Sometimes the market has more demand for income and sometimes the market has more demand for capital appreciation – these gyrations in sentiment are what cause opportunities for the neglected part of the marketplace, just as how most non-dividend bearing companies in the marketplace today are somewhat discounted by the apparent lack of income produced.

There is a certain beauty in the premise of dividend investing, but ultimately it is a failed strategy if an investor does not consider the underlying operations of the company and evaluating the company’s ability to generate free cash flow that sustain such dividends. Whether a company gives off dividends in the process or not is a very minor consideration in the valuation process.

Trading annoyances

The most frustrating experience while trading is setting a limit order for something, having the underlying security trade one penny away from your price, and then have the market move away from you.

On less liquid issues there are usually algorithms that will try front-running your open order for a penny, which is why such orders should be tactically placed. On more liquid orders you can usually keep the orders open and not be prone to sniping.

OPTI Canada – Not looking too good

OPTI Canada owns an equity stake in an oil sands operation. Equity investors in OPTI Canada (TSX: OPC) have not been feeling too good lately – the latest catalyst to their downfall has been them sacking their prior consultants that they employed failed to find “strategic alternatives” (a.k.a. creative financing or an outright sale).

The following is a chart of their recent trading:

Equity investors have lost about 60% of what remains of their investment.

Looking quickly at the financial statements is a company that has a massive amount of debt and little chance of being able to pay it off. They have a total debt of about $2.6 billion. One major maturity will start on December 15, 2012 – approximately $525 million. As there is no chance of internal cash flows being able to pay off this amount in the next 22 months, they will either have to renegotiate some package with their creditors or take their chances in bankruptcy court. Either way, the equity investors in OPTI still look like they are holding an overvalued stock.

Bond traders are not faring much better – OPTI has two issues of senior secured notes, due 2014 and par value of $1.75 billion – they are now trading at 49 cents on the dollar, down from 80 cents back in November 2010. These bonds are effectively junior to $850 million of other debt that is due to mature at an earlier date.