For the OP, on diversification, use low-cost ETFs or mutual funds, and try to find categories that aren’t correlated (though that’s becoming harder and harder).
Here’s a good article on basic diversification:
[i]What Your Portfolio Really Needs
By JONATHAN BURTON
August 15, 2007; Page D1
Feeling whipsawed by this market? It’s times like these when a diversified portfolio is supposed to pay off. But with so many exotic choices out there, it’s hard to know what diversification really means.
These days, what happens on Wall Street doesn’t stay there. Gyrating U.S. stocks affect Europe, Asia and elsewhere, as has been painfully evident recently to investors seeking shelter from the markets’ torrential storms.
So why diversify? Two words: risk control.
Diversification keeps several pots simmering at once. It’s a curious fact that adding riskier assets to a portfolio actually makes it safer. The key is how much of each ingredient you use. Ultimately that depends on your taste, but if Julia Child had been an investment adviser, she would have told you that a little spice goes a long way. Putting 5% of a portfolio in emerging-market stocks and 5% in real estate, for example, has been shown to boost returns and lower volatility.
It turns out that when viewed over many years, markets aren’t so intertwined after all. Stocks in the U.S. and other developed countries take independent paths, and emerging economies are in another orbit. Stocks have even looser ties to bonds, real estate, commodities and other alternative investments.
Your options, however, seem endless. Some tap vital markets; others are just clever marketing. Confused? Here’s what you really need to diversify, what’s nice to have and what you can do without.
�?� Need to have. Stocks: Fundamentals apply. Own shares of large and small companies – only now when you buy locally, think globally. The big companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index, for example, generate almost half of their sales outside of the U.S.
With a conservative allocation of 60% stocks, for example, give brand-name S&P 500 stocks 35% of the portfolio and small caps 5%. Then earmark 15% to an international index fund that holds companies of all sizes, plus another 5% to a geographically dispersed emerging-markets fund.
Bonds: The subprime mortgage mess is tainting bonds. Avoid trouble by investing in U.S. government bonds and other top-quality issues. Bonds provide regular income, so they’re a terrific diversifier, and over time show decent returns. Long-term Treasurys, for example, have delivered three-fourths of the S&P 500’s 11.7% annualized gain since 1989 with about 60% of stocks’ volatility, says Ibbotson Associates.
Bond prices fall when interest-rates rise, and vice versa. Longer-dated bonds are susceptible to rate changes, while short-term issues are insulated. Cover yourself with a “laddered” strategy of one-, three-, five- and 10-year debt. Consider Treasury Inflation Protected Securities, or TIPS, which unlike most bonds will hold their value as the cost of living climbs.
“Have the core of your portfolio in stock index funds and bond index funds,” says John Bogle, founder of mutual-fund giant Vanguard Group. “That’s the way you will capture the largest percentage of returns that a business earns.”
�?� Nice to have. Real estate: Home ownership is probably enough real estate for most of us. But property does act differently from other investments. A 5% stake in a mutual fund or exchange-traded fund that owns real-estate stocks or real-estate investment trusts should do the job. Again, think globally – the world is getting wealthier, and as the saying goes, they’re not making any more land.
�?� Don’t really need. Sector funds: Buying a surging sector is tempting, but such bets can turn against you quickly. “Be involved in profitable businesses around the world regardless of what’s hot and what’s not,” says Kacy Gott, a financial adviser in San Francisco. “Don’t chase sectors. That’s not for investors; that’s for traders.”
Gold: It insures against financial catastrophe and marches to its own drum. But as an investment, short-term risk is high and long-term reward is marginal. If you want gold, buy jewelry.
Other commodities: This is a controversial call, for good reason. The price of so-called hard assets is soaring. China, India and other fast-growing countries need oil, natural gas, metals and materials to fuel development. Demand for agricultural products is also high.
You can play this trend with funds or ETFs that own a basket of commodities, and yes, you’ll get diversification. But in truth, you’ll do fine without direct exposure.
“Commodities are way overhyped as an asset class,” says Jeremy Siegel, a Wharton School finance professor. Instead, he’d buy stock in oil producers, mining companies and other businesses that stand to profit from this global boom.
HOW TO DIVERSIFY
�?� Need to have: U.S. stocks, overseas developed- and emerging-market stocks, U.S. government bonds.
�?� Nice to have: U.S. and international real estate investment trusts and other real estate securities.
�?� Don’t really need: Sector stock funds, gold and other commodities.
Write to Jonathan Burton at jonathan.burton@dowjones.com. Jonathan Clements is on vacation.[/i]
And here is an example of how one could build a diversified portfolio using ETFs:
[i] The Couch Potato building blocks let you choose your level of complexity. In each portfolio, the funds are equally weighted, starting with the two-fund basic Updated Couch Potato. Here’s how to do it with low-cost exchange-traded funds.
The Updated Couch Potato
Total domestic stock fund: iShares Russell 3,000 (IWV), iShares S&P 1,500 (ISI), Dow Jones Total Market Index (IYY) or Vanguard Vipers Total Market Index (VTI).
Treasury inflation-protected securities fund: iShares Lehman TIPS (TIP).
The Margarita Portfolio
Add a total international stock fund: iShares Morgan Stanley EAFE (EFA).
Four Square Portfolio
Add an unhedged international bond fund. But none is available as an ETF. So go with American Century International Bond (BEGBX).
Five Fold Portfolio
Add a REIT fund: iShares Dow Jones U.S. Real Estate Index (IYR) or iShares Cohen and Steers Realty Majors Index (ICF) or Vanguard REIT Vipers (VNQ).
Six Ways From Sunday Portfolio:
Add an energy fund: Vanguard Energy Vipers (VDE) or iShares S&P Global Energy Index (IXC) or iShares Dow Jones U.S. Energy Index (IYE) or SPDR Energy (XLE).
SOURCE: Scott Burns[/i]
If you’re really worried about inflation, you could add a TIPS bond fund like the Vanguard TIPS fund: VIPSX
Also, if you don’t know about ETFs versus mutual funds generally, read this:
[i]Exchange-Traded Funds
Before You Drive That Hot ETF…
They’re spiffy and alluring, but an owner’s manual is essential for novices
By ELEANOR LAISE
June 4, 2007; Page R1
What you don’t understand about exchange-traded funds could hurt you.
Think of it like a typical suburban minivan driver put behind the wheel of a Formula One race car. Small investors trading their steady-Eddie mutual funds for souped-up exchange-traded funds are in a similar situation. They understand the vehicle’s basic operation, but they may not be able to use it to its full potential, and they could be tempted into reckless moves.
Many small investors already understand that ETFs are much like index-tracking mutual funds yet trade on an exchange like a stock, and that they generally charge much lower expenses than conventional mutual funds.
But there is much more to know about these relatively new funds, which, like race cars, contain complex machinery in a sleek, simple package.
To start with, the expense advantages aren’t always as great as they appear at first glance. Beyond the brokerage-firm commission to buy ETF shares, there are more-complicated trading costs. In addition, while ETFs are similar to index mutual funds, they follow a wide assortment of complex benchmarks that can mean very different risks and rewards for investors.
Since many of these funds are brand new, they aren’t truly road-tested. The back-tested performance data used to sell these products are sort of like those car commercials where vehicles are put through their paces by a professional driver on a closed track.
As the ETF industry booms, with assets now totaling about $480 billion in 500 offerings, it is becoming crucial for small investors to understand these funds’ inner workings. Here follows an owner’s manual for ETF investors, drawing on freshly crunched data and new research by Morgan Stanley and Morningstar Inc., among others.
No. 1. ETFs are cheap – but aren’t always the cheapest investment option.
The expense ratio, which represents the percentage of fund assets deducted each year to cover management fees and other costs, takes a bite out of investors’ returns. The ETFs with the lowest costs are often those tracking broad, well-known U.S. stock-market indexes. Vanguard Group Inc.'s Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF, for instance, charges a 0.07% annual expense ratio – or $7 for every $10,000 invested.
But many ETFs aren’t rock-bottom cheap. In fact, so many new ETFs have hit the market recently with higher fees that the average expense ratio for a U.S. stock ETF has jumped 21% just over the past three months – to 0.52% of assets, up from 0.43%, according to Morgan Stanley.
Amvescap PLC’s PowerShares Capital Management unit, one fast-growing ETF provider, charges 0.60% for most of its industry-focused ETFs, including PowerShares Dynamic Retail Portfolio, PowerShares Dynamic Energy Sector Portfolio and PowerShares Water Resources Portfolio. XShares Group LLC’s HealthShares lineup of health-care and biotechnology ETFs costs 0.75%. At the higher end, charging 0.95%, are some leveraged ETFs and those that make bearish bets against stocks, including ProShare Advisors LLC’s Ultra S&P 500 ProShares and Short S&P500 ProShares.
The ProShare ETFs, many of which aim to deliver double an index’s performance on a daily basis, are more expensive because they “require a specialized level of knowledge and skills to run,” says Michael Sapir, chairman and chief executive of ProShare Advisors. He adds that the ETFs are cheaper than comparable mutual funds. Jeff Feldman, chairman of XShares Group, says the HealthShares ETFs, which are composed largely of smaller companies, are “more difficult to put together,” and the funds’ relatively small size means that their asset-based expenses will be higher.
To be sure, all these ETFs are still cheap compared with the 1.42% levied by the average diversified U.S. stock mutual fund. But more than 600 no-load U.S. stock mutual funds sold to small investors offer at least one share class charging 0.95% or less, according to a search by Morningstar of its database of roughly 3,280 U.S. stock mutual funds. Some are index funds, as those tend to be the least expensive funds in the mutual-fund world, but hundreds of funds run by stock pickers also made the cut.
Among these: Vanguard Windsor, which charges 0.36% a year and delivered an average annual 11.4% return in the five years ended May 29, beating the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index by more than two percentage points.
No. 2. ETFs have layers of complex trading costs.
A big appeal of ETFs is that they can be traded throughout the day on a stock exchange, just like a stock and unlike a mutual fund, which is typically priced just once a day, when markets close at 4 p.m. Eastern time. The brokerage commission that investors typically pay to buy or sell an ETF is fairly straightforward. Sometimes, it can be less than $10 a trade.
Murkier is the bid-ask spread. An investor buys an ETF at the “ask” price and ultimately sells at the “bid” price, incurring a cost equal to the difference between the two prices. So an investor wants as small a spread as possible. Think of it as another trading cost, like a brokerage commission.
In general, funds that hold heavily traded stocks and track well-known indexes tend to have narrower bid-ask spreads. ETFs focused on less heavily traded market segments or that track more-exotic indexes often have larger spreads.
Among U.S. stock ETFs, for example, the fund with the biggest spread in the six months ended April 30 was First Trust Portfolios LP’s First Trust DB Strategic Value Index, according to XTF Global Asset Management, which tracks, rates and builds portfolios of ETFs. That fund, which tracks the obscure Deutsche Bank CROCI US+ Index, a benchmark composed of large-cap U.S. stocks, had an average spread of 0.64% of its share price, or roughly 16 cents, based on the fund’s recent $25 share price. That means that, on top of the fund’s 0.65% expense ratio and the brokerage commission paid to buy and sell, an investor trading the fund at typical market prices over that period may have sacrificed an additional 0.64% of his or her investment to trading costs.
According to First Trust’s own data, the ETF’s spread over a more recent period – the year to date – has averaged just over 7 cents, says First Trust Senior Vice President Dan Waldron. “There are no liquidity issues with this basket of securities,” he says.
In contrast, State Street Global Advisors’ S&P 500-tracking Standard & Poor’s Depositary Receipts, or SPDR, had an average bid-ask spread over the six-month period amounting to less than 0.01% of its share price, according to XTF.
Investors can visit XTF’s free Web site xtf.com to learn more about bid-ask spreads. The site shows an average bid/ask ratio for each ETF, reflecting the bid-ask spread as a fraction of the ETF’s price over the past six months, and ranks each ETF’s bid/ask ratio against other funds in its category.
No. 3. The variety of ETFs on the market means investors have plenty of choice – and plenty of room for confusion.
Two ETFs that appear nearly identical on the surface may pursue quite different strategies, meaning different returns and risks for investors. While the same may be said of conventional mutual funds, “there has been more experimentation” in the ETF market lately, says Sonya Morris, a Morningstar analyst.
A big positive for ETFs is that, unlike mutual funds, they generally publish their holdings each day, so investors have the ability to determine exactly what’s inside their fund. That is why a lot of financial planners, trying to allocate clients’ money precisely across various asset classes, like them. Mutual funds, by contrast, are required to disclose their holdings only four times a year.
Consider that Barclays Global Investors’ iShares FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index ETF gained 83% last year, while PowerShares Golden Dragon Halter USX China Portfolio ETF gained 55%. A big reason for the performance difference: The iShares ETF tracks an index of 25 Chinese companies that trade on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, and roughly 40% of its assets are in financial stocks. The PowerShares ETF tracks an index of U.S.-listed companies that get most of their sales from China; only about 5% of its assets are in the financial sector.
ETFs tracking the biggest U.S. stocks also show great variety. Take the iShares S&P 500 Index ETF, which returned 13.6% a year on average in the three years ended May 23, and Rydex Investments’ Rydex S&P Equal Weight ETF, which returned 16.9% a year on average over that period.
The performance gap springs from the different weighting schemes employed by the two ETFs. The iShares fund tracks the traditional S&P 500, in which stocks’ weightings are determined by their market valuation, while the Rydex fund weights all of the S&P 500 stocks equally.
Many other ETFs use an approach known as fundamental indexing, meaning stocks are weighted on the basis of such measures as dividends or revenue. That strategy often gives funds a “value” tilt, meaning they favor shares deemed inexpensive on the basis of such things as price/earnings ratios. For the past seven years in the U.S., value stocks outperformed “growth” stocks – those of companies with rapidly expanding earnings – giving value-tilted indexes an edge.
No. 4. An index-tracking fund doesn’t always track its index well.
To run a portfolio that delivers the exact same return as an index requires skill, starting with the decision of how closely a fund’s holdings should reflect its benchmark.
Some funds buy exactly the same stocks and maintain the same weightings as the underlying index. Matthew Hougan, editor of IndexUniverse.com, an index-industry Web site, noted in a recent report that such funds may have higher trading costs but lower tracking error, after fees. Other funds buy only a portion of the index’s stocks in order to lower trading costs, but this raises the risk of tracking error, Mr. Hougan wrote.
ETF tracking error is on the rise. Among U.S. major-market ETFs, the average tracking error in 2006 was 0.29 percentage point, up from 0.18 percentage point the year before, according to Morgan Stanley.
One reason: ETFs have become increasingly specialized. Narrower funds sometimes can’t mirror their indexes precisely or they would run afoul of Securities and Exchange Commission rules requiring funds to stay diversified. Those rules say a fund must invest no more than 25% of assets in a single holding and no more than half of assets in holdings with weightings of 5% or more.
In the Dow Jones U.S. Telecommunications Index, for example, AT&T Inc. has a roughly 50% weighting. But because of the SEC’s requirements, AT&T shares represent only about 20% of Barclays’s iShares Dow Jones U.S. Telecommunications Sector Index ETF, which tracks the Dow Jones index. The iShares ETF’s tracking error was roughly 4.5 percentage points last year, according to Morgan Stanley.
“Not even close,” Mr. Hougan says.
“The fund manager is going to do his best to have a limited amount of tracking error,” but given the diversification requirements, “4% is the best you can do,” says Christine Hudacko, spokeswoman for Barclays.
In its study of major ETF providers’ tracking error for 2006, Morgan Stanley found a link between fees and a fund’s ability to track its index. Vanguard ETFs, which had the lowest average fees, had the lowest average tracking error, 0.28 percentage point. In one of the best showings, Vanguard Small-Cap Growth ETF deviated from its index by just 0.01 percentage point, according to Morgan Stanley.
PowerShares ETFs, which had the highest average fees, also had the highest average tracking error: 0.71 percentage point.
The PowerShares ETFs have higher tracking error largely because they often invest in stocks that are difficult to trade and are rebalanced frequently, not because they have higher fees, says Managing Director John Southard.
Some exchange-traded vehicles have a unique structure that cuts investors’ risk of tracking error. Barclays last year launched exchange-traded notes, which are designed to give investors the return of benchmarks such as the MSCI India Total Return Index, minus fees. But investors in these vehicles take on some credit risk – albeit very slight – as the notes are debt issued by Barclays Bank PLC.
No. 5. Many ETFs lack genuine performance histories.
While ETFs generally offer up long-term index track records, these figures often are hypothetical, “back-tested” performance rather than true market returns. A fund’s strong back-tested record “is no guarantee it will perform well in the real world,” Morningstar’s Ms. Morris says.
The strong back-tests for some indexes tracked by fundamentally weighted ETFs like WisdomTree LargeCap Dividend, for example, reflect the strength of value stocks over the past seven years, Morgan Stanley found in its recent research. But the S&P 500 topped those value-oriented indexes in the late 1990s when growth stocks led the market – and soon could lead again, if many financial advisers are correct that the reign of value stocks has neared its end.
While WisdomTree’s dividend-weighted ETFs “will lag if the market gets speculative,” the market has consistently awarded a premium to value stocks over time, and dividend-paying stocks help to reduce the volatility of a portfolio, says WisdomTree Investments Inc. president Bruce Lavine.
Another caveat on back-tested results: They don’t factor in trading costs, which include commissions paid to buy or sell stocks, as well as “market impact,” which refers to the way a fund may move a stock’s price by attempting to buy or sell it.
“I don’t think you can question back-tested results enough,” Mr. Hougan says.
No. 6. Some ETFs may be fit for hedge funds and other high rollers, but not for small investors.
While many financial advisers and investment professionals admire ETFs for their low costs and broad diversification, a number of newly launched ETFs don’t quite fit that description.
“There’s a lot of junk coming out, truthfully,” says Jeff Buetow, chief investment officer at XTF. “Many of these things are not well diversified, and they’re charging silly fees.”
A slew of narrowly focused ETFs have been launched in recent months. Many financial advisers feel such funds are a gamble, not a long-term investment.
Fund companies also have a habit of launching ETFs in go-go market segments that may deliver eye-popping results in the short term but fizzle over the long haul. “ETFs can be very alluring to performance-chasers, and a lot of the new rollouts have been in hot market areas,” Ms. Morris says. “That panders to investors’ worst instincts.”
Narrow ETFs can make sense as a small part of a diversified portfolio. Morgan Stanley’s Global Wealth Management Group recommends that clients devote a small slice of their cash allocation to Rydex’s CurrencyShares Euro Trust. The fund offers “a very cheap way” for small investors to access the currency market, which has traditionally been the domain of professional investors, says David Darst, chief investment strategist for the Global Wealth Management Group.
The rapid growth of the ETF industry also means that “a lot of people think we’re in a bubble phase,” says Mr. Hougan, the IndexUniverse.com editor. “Some of these funds may not stick, and you don’t want to be caught holding a fund that has to be liquidated.” If a fund shuts down, investors may face a tax bill and be forced to pay additional commissions in order to shift to new holdings.
–Ms. Laise is a staff reporter in The Wall Street Journal’s New York bureau.
Write to Eleanor Laise at eleanor.laise@wsj.com[/i]