Indexology^® Blog

Congratulations to the Chicago Blackhawks on their awesome win last night! I must admit I was very excited watching the most amazing finish I have ever seen in hockey, but as a commodity lady my first thought was about the metal in the Stanley Cup and what is it worth, especially given the current environment of a strengthening U.S. dollar and rising U.S. bond yields.

From the economic backdrop, silver and nickel, the two metals that form the cup, are the worst performing metals in their respective sectors. Year-to-date in 2013, the S&P GSCI Silver is down 35.8% and the S&P GSCI Nickel lost 20.8%. The cup is made up of 97% silver and 3% nickel, so just for fun, we thought we would chart a “Stanley Cup Index” to reflect historical levels of the alloy.

Who won the most valuable Stanley Cup? The last time the Chicago Blackhawks took the title, the cup had about the same value as yesterday, only slightly higher at 213 versus yesterday’s level of 205. However, while they were holding it, the index increased 153% to a high value of 538 on April 29, 2011 – just before the Boston Bruins would take it over but at a value 27% off the high at an index level of 391.  

Although our hypothetical “Stanley Cup Index” only begins 20 years ago, as far back as we have the single commodity index data for nickel, there was a time where the cup was worth more. To illustrate roughly the cup in history as far back as 1927, the first time the Cup was solely contested by National Hockey League teams, one can look at the historical silver prices on an inflation adjusted basis.  The approximate value of the original cup (100% sliver,) the historical price can be multiplied by the weight of 459.74 troy oz. According to this method, for example, yesterday the price was roughly $19.50 so the value of the cup was about $8,964.93. According to the chart, in 1979, when the Montreal Canadiens won, the value was approximately $12,307.24 and rose to a value of about $47,256.67 by Jan 1980. Not unlike the 2010-11 drop before the Bruins last won, the value of the cup dropped 55% to roughly $21,106.66 before the New York Islanders earned it.

In both the recession of the early 80’s and post the global financial crisis of 2008, correlations spiked from an aggregate increase in demand. This only happened one other time in history post the 2001 tech-bubble bust. Stay tuned for more about correlations.

Investment grade municipal bonds tracked in the S&P National AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index have seen a negative total return of 4.97%  in June so far, the worst month since September 2008 when the index was down 5.13%.  The yield (Yield to worst) on bonds in the index has risen by 95bps since the end of May.

High yield municipal bonds tracked in the S&P Municipal Bond High Yield Index have seen a negative return of 7.08% for June so far, the worst month since December 2008 when the index recorded a negative return of 9.12%.  Yields of bonds in the index have risen by 88bps for the month of June so far.

Puerto Rico remains the worst performing State & Territory with the S&P Municipal Bond Puerto Rico Index down 7.63% for June so far.  The S&P Municipal Bond Illinois Index is down 4.66% and it’s California counterpart is down 5.35%.

In comparison:

The S&P U.S. Issued Investment Grade Corporate Bond Index is down 3.16% for June to date.

The S&P U.S. Issued High Yield Corporate Bond Index is down 3.46% for June to date.

The title is in quotes because it comes from FTFM, a supplement to the Financial Times reporting recent developments in the long running debat about active vs passive investing.

The SPIVA reports published by S&P Dow Jones Indices  show that actively managed mutual funds under-perform their index benchmarks more often than not.  For a long time this seemed to be a well kept secret. However, the rising popularity of ETFs have boosted the share of assets in passive or index-based investments.  Now comes a report that more and more investors — including active managers — are investing in passive or index-based investments.  FTFM reports that a “survey of 1001 fund management professionals — many of whom make their living promoting active products — showed that two-thirds have invested a sizeable amount of their personal savings in passive products. And 45% said they have invested a ‘significant portion’ in such funds.”

One source of the rising popularity of index investing, even among active fund managers, is the growth in strategy indices offering a wide range of investment strategies through ETFs.  While market cap weighted index funds based on the S&P 500 and other recognized indices continue to dominate the market, new ideas generate interest and attract assets.  A second reason for the growth of index investing is the fee differentials between passive and active management which favors passive investing.  Burton Malkiel who started the rush to passive investing with his book A Random Walk Down Wall Street  surveyed the field in a recent article in the Journal of Economic Perspectives.

Compared to a month ago, every major developed equity market is down, some by double digits while bond yields have climbed over the same period.  The U.S. markets – both stocks and bonds — are among the least damaged.  For investors the questions are when will it end?, where can one hide? and why?

When will it end?

Assume that the Fed’s forecast is right and the economy is improving and will continue to improve.  Then the fortunes of stocks and bonds are likely to split with stocks recovering while bonds continue to suffer.  An improving economy should help stocks turnaround while the Fed’s less generous attitude  combined with economic strength means bond yields will rise more.  Markets tend to over react and overshoot when shocked as they were last week.  Beware a bounce in stocks or bonds creating a false sense of security for all. If the Fed is too optimistic and the economy falters, we will see QE4; but, we might be too nervous to take advantage of it.

Where can one hide?

Not bonds, maybe stocks. Maybe the silver lining is we’ve seen the first tiny steps to being able to earn a (small) return on cash.

What happened?

Everyone knew that one day the Fed would end Quantitative Easing but  everyone believed that that day would never come.  Then the Fed suggested a date – beginning of the end this fall, the end of the end next summer.  If your ten year treasury is worth 100 today and will be worth 90 next summer, you don’t wait  to sell it.  You sell it now and all that selling makes it worth 90 now. This is what happened.  Rather than complaining about the fickle Fed, remember their job is to worry about what could go wrong, lean against the wind and act as “the chaperone who has ordered the punch bowl removed when the party was really warming up.” (The quote is from William McC. Martin, Fed chairman in the 1950s and 1960s, credit to the Conversable Economist blog for the citation and a copy of the speech.)

Scorecard:

S&P 500 down 4.7% and DJIA down 4.3% from the close on Tuesday 6/18 to the close on Monday 6/24. 10 year Treasury note yield rose 38 bp or 17% over same time period.

Investors are rightly concerned about the future course of equity prices, especially in the context of the Federal Reserve’s bruited tapering of QE3, and it’s obviously true that equity market volatility has increased sharply since the beginning of May. Rising volatility typically means lower stock prices — the correlation of the S&P 500 and the S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures Index is -0.78. If volatility continues to rise, what can equity investors do to diminish its impact?

An increasingly popular solution in recent years has been to use a variety of low volatility strategies as an alternative to traditional cap-weighted indices. Low vol indices are designed to attenuate the movements of their parent index, in both directions — they typically go up less when times are good, and go down less when times are bad. But although they may go down less when times are bad, they still go down. For the month of June (through the close on Friday 6/21), the total return of the S&P 500 was -2.23%, versus -1.38% for the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index. Low Vol did what it typically does in bad markets by diminishing the parent index’s decline.*

There’s another approach to dealing with increasingly volatile equity markets. That approach is to own a long position in VIX futures — in other words, to regard volatility as a diversifying asset for the investor’s equity portfolio. In this sense, volatility is analogous to an insurance policy. The problem is that when you don’t need it, volatility can be very expensive insurance. For the year ended 6/21/13, e.g., the S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures Index declined by -69% (while the S&P 500 rose by +23%).* Holding a permanent or static portfolio weight in volatility is likely to be an expensive exercise.

The S&P 500 Dynamic VEQTOR Index attempts to cheapen the implicit insurance cost of owning volatility by altering its relative exposure to VIX and the underlying S&P 500. (Hence the name: VEQTOR = Volatility and EQuity allocaTOR.) When it appears propitious to increase exposure to volatility (for example, when it’s in an uptrend), VEQTOR holds more. At other times, VEQTOR’s vol exposures can be quite modest. The combination of two negatively-correlated asset (equity and equity volatility) can produce a smoother, hedged pattern of returns, especially in comparison to a fully-invested equity index. For example, for the month of June (through the close on Friday 6/21), the total return of the S&P 500 Dynamic VEQTOR Index was +0.24%, compared to the S&P 500’s -2.23% decline.*

Volatility is uncomfortable for all equity investors. But it’s also unavoidable. Those who seek to lessen its effects can try to own it (with VEQTOR) or reduce it (with Low Vol). Both choices have their risks, and both have their potential rewards.

* Examples are provided for illustrative purposes only. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.