Jump to content
Life_in_the_sun

CEFs

Recommended Posts

Life_in_the_sun
Posted · Edited by Life_in_the_sun

Equity CEFs: A Big Fat Opportunity In The AllianzGI Technology CEF

by Douglas Albo

Jul. 28, 2020 10:36 AM ETAllianzGI Artificial Intelligence & Technology Opportunities Fund (AIO)

ISIN US01883M1018

Ticker AIO

Handelsplätze, NYSE 

BB OT, Frankfurt, München wie üblich bei US Werten ist der Spread extrem groß

 

 

Artikel (gekürzt) aus SA

 

 

........this article is actually about another new technology CEF called the AllianzGI Artificial Intelligence & Technology Opportunities fund (AIO), $20.22 current market price, $23.32 NAV, -13.3% discount, 6.4% current market yield.

As new as BSTZ is to the technology CEF field, having gone public just over one year ago (despite Mr. Kim having 25 years-plus of experience in the technology field), AIO is even newer, having gone public just in November of 2019.

AllianzGI may be better known for its convertible desk rather than its technology prowess, but the fund's two technology managers based in San Francisco, Mr. James Chen and Mr. Stephen Jue, have a combined 47 years of experience as well.

So what's AIO all about? Well, the fund's portfolio breakdown is actually 50% convertible securities, 45% stock and about 5% cash. Since the majority of AIO's portfolio is in convertibles, just what are they?

Convertibles are hybrid securities that combine the features of debt as well as equity. Generally, convertibles offer shareholders a stable stream of income as well as the right to exchange or convert the security at either a stated price or stated rate into underlying shares of common stock.

So the advantage to shareholders is that they can receive income that's generally higher than what the common stock would offer while having the opportunity to convert the shares at some point in the future and participate in the common stock upside and company success. The advantage to the issuer of the convertible debt is a lower debt service obligation than if they issued straight corporate or high yield bond debt.

This also means that AIO is somewhat unique in its income strategy. Because convertibles are AllianzGI's strong point, most of their equity CEFs include convertibles in their portfolios to some degree though most of these funds also sell options against the higher equity portions of their portfolios.

For example, the AllianzGI Equity & Convertible Income fund (NIE), $23.86 current market price, which has been a standout fund in its own right, is only about 34% convertibles, 62% equities and uses some option writing in it income strategy.

However, because AIO relies more on its high percentage of convertibles in its portfolio, AIO does not use options or leverage currently, even though it is authorized to do so.

Here is AIO's top 10 holdings as of 6/30/2020. These include both stock and convertible holdings: sieht Foto

As you might guess with a portfolio of 50% convertibles and 45% stock, AIO will have a much lower beta than an all-stock portfolio. This can be a significant advantage in uncertain times like these while still offering the opportunity of upside capture if growth and technology stocks continue to outperform.

Though this article will not single out or analyze any of AIO's individual stock or convertible positions or the relationship they might have to the "artificial intelligence" in the fund's name, the most important takeaway is that year-to-date, AIO's NAV is up a solid 16.3% even while AIO's market price is up only 4.4% YTD.

That 16.3% would put AIO's NAV performance in the top five of all equity CEFs I follow as shown in the table below (as of Friday, 7/24/20).

Note: Fund's in green were outperforming the S&P 500 (SPY) while fund's in red were underperforming. This table only shows about 30 out of 100 equity CEFs I follow

What Are Investors Waiting For?

I'm not sure I have EVER seen two equity CEFs with such strong NAV performances that are lagging so much at market price. This is shown in the table above in the NAV & MKT Difference column. AIO is up only about 4.4% at market price YTD and is barely above its $20 IPO price even though AIO's NAV is now at $23.32.

This is not suppose to happen. Fast-growing companies and stocks are generally rewarded with higher valuations, but in the case of CEFs, its often just the opposite. On the other hand, some of the worst performing CEFs at NAV can somehow trade at high premiums, often because of unsustainably high yields that will eventually collapse the fund.

I explain why this happens in this article, Equity CEFs: Why CEFs Can Stay At Premiums/Discounts And Why It Doesn't Matter, and you should take a moment to read it to understand why this can go on for sometime before it all falls apart. The more important takeaway is which fund will perform better going forward?............


Note: Fund's in green were outperforming the S&P 500 (SPY) while fund's in red were underperforming. This table only shows about 30 out of 100 equity CEFs I follow

Sieh Foto

 

A7D2C08F-023A-41D8-93B2-A11C525FA07A.png

A7EDD4D4-CE50-4657-9776-398C86005021.png

AllianzGI-Artificial-Intelligence-Technology-Opportunities-Fund-Card.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Life_in_the_sun
Posted

Nachkauf gerade eben

 

OFS CREDIT CO. INC.

Ticker OCCI

ISIN US67111Q1076

$ 8,84

 

RiverNorth/DoubleLine Strategic Opportunity Fund

Ticker OPP

ISIN US76882G1076

$ 14,26

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Life_in_the_sun
Posted · Edited by Life_in_the_sun
Ergänzung

Nachkauf gestern

 

Cornerstone Strategic Value

Ticker CLM

ISIN US21924B3024

$ 10,67

Ausschüttung monatlich $ 0,1853 = 20,80 % pa 

 

Total Return (Price) YTD

CLM

9,52 %

 

S & P 500 TR USD

1,96 %

 

Quelle Morningstar 

 

 

Fonds Kategorie: US Large Blend

Weitere Informationen https://www.morningstar.com/cefs/xase/clm/quote

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Life_in_the_sun
Posted

Nochmaliger Nachkauf gestern

 

Cornerstone Strategic Value

Ticker CLM

ISIN US21924B3024

$ 10,74

 

RiverNorth/DoubleLine Strategic Opportunity Fund

Ticker OPP

ISIN US76882G1076

$ 14,47

 

Share this post


Link to post
Life_in_the_sun
Posted

 

Quo vadis OXLC

 

Nachkauf gestern

Oxford Capital Lane

Ticker OXLC

ISIN US6915431026

$ 4,25

 

 

Nachdem OXLC ISIN US6915431026 am 30.07. einen nochmaligen NAV Rückgang von $ 3,58 per 31.03. auf nunmehr $ 3,23 bekanntgegeben hat, steigt der Preis in der letzten Woche ( 24.07 ) von ca. $ 4,00 auf gestern ( Schlusskurs IB ) $ 4,51. Das entspricht einem Premium von gut 30 % auf den NAV und einer Ausschüttungsrendite von ca 18 % pa .

Das Kursplus beträgt also gut 12,x % in einer Woche.

Der Grund dafür könnte der eine Kaufempfehlung von Ladenberg Thalman & Co. „Strong buy“ und eine positive Einschätzung von Zacks sein. Kursziel von $ 10,00. 

Das Portfolio wird zZ mit $ ca 0.52 Cent für einen $ 1,00 bewertet ( Quelle cefconnect.com ). Spielraum für einen NAV Anstieg ist mE nach vorhanden, aber an einen Kursanstieg auf $ 10,00 mag ich ( noch ) nicht glauben. 

Zitat aus dem Quartalsberichte von OXLC

the U.S. loan market strengthened versus the quarter ended March 31, 2020. U.S. loan prices, as defined by the S&P / LSTA Leveraged Loan Index, increased from 82.9% of par value as of March 31, 2020 to a quarterly high of 91.2% of par value on June 10, 2020, before declining to 89.9% of par value on June 30, 2020.

https://ir.oxfordlanecapital.com/news-market-data/press-releases/news-details/2020/Oxford-Lane-Capital-Corp.-Announces-Net-Asset-Value-and-Selected-Financial-Results-for-the-First-Fiscal-Quarter-and-Declaration-of-Distributions-on-Common-Stock-for-the-Months-Ending-October-31-November-30-and-December-31-2020/default.aspx

Die Bewertung des US Loan Marktes folgt wohl auch der Entwicklung der Corona Zahlen in den USA. Sollten die Fallzahlen sinken und das werden sie irgendwann ganz sicher, werden sich die Wirtschaftsaussichten deutlich verbessern und damit auch die Kurse von Anleihen, CLOs etc anziehen. 

 

 

Für Mutige und wirklich nur für die, bietet sich hier bei entsprechender Risikobereitschaft, vielleicht eine Einstiegsmöglichkeit. 

Wie immer, keine Kaufempfehlung, sondern lediglich Ideen für den einen oder anderen.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Life_in_the_sun
Posted

Kauf gestern

 

Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Diversified Equity Income Fund

Ticker ETY

ISIN US27828N1028

$ 11,10

Ausschüttung  monatlich $ 0,0843 = 9,1 % pa

 

Zitat aus dem Fact Sheet

Der Fonds investiert in ein diversifiziertes Portfolio aus in- und ausländischen Stammaktien mit Schwerpunkt auf dividendenzahlenden Aktien und schreibt (verkauft) Kaufoptionen für den S&P 500® Index in Bezug auf einen Teil des Wertes seines Stammaktienportfolios, um aus der erhaltenen Optionsprämie einen laufenden Cashflow zu generieren. Der Fonds bewertet die Erträge auf einer Nachsteuerbasis und versucht, die Bundessteuern, die den Aktionären im Zusammenhang mit ihrer Investition in den Fonds entstehen, zu minimieren und aufzuschieben.

Holdings Microsoft, Corp Amazon.com  Inc , Apple  Inc, Visa  Inc, Intel  Corp, Alphabet Inc, Vertex  Pharmaceuticals  Inc, Danaher  Corp, JPMorgan Chase & Co,Abbott  Laboratories Portfolio  

USA              97,3 %

Europa          1,16 %

Asia/Pazifik   1,1 %

Fact Sheet .

 

 

 

 

 

Tax-Managed Diversified Equity Income Fund Fact Sheet.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Life_in_the_sun
Posted
vor einer Stunde von Life_in_the_sun:

Der Fonds bewertet die Erträge auf einer Nachsteuerbasis und versucht, die Bundessteuern, die den Aktionären im Zusammenhang mit ihrer Investition in den Fonds entstehen, zu minimieren und aufzuschieben.

hier ein paar Anmerkungen zum Thema Quellensteuer bei CEFs.

Einige CEFs zahlen die Ausschüttung oder Teile davon auch als ROC ( Return of Capital ) aus. Dieses ROC muss nicht immer aus dem NAV kommen, sondern kann auch wie bei ETY oder CLM aus Optionsgeschäften stammen und wird entsprechend den US Steuergesetzen anders als Dividende behandelt und als ROC klassifiziert. 

Bei ETY wird die gesamte Ausschüttung als ROC klassifiziert, bei CLM sind es immerhin ca 56,xx % .  

Dieser Anteil an den Ausschüttungen ist dann grundsätzlich ( für Steuerausländer ? ) zB bei IB oder captrader steuerfrei.

 

Die Daten kann man grundsätzlich den Quartals - Jahresberichten oder den SEC Filings der Fondsgesellschaften entnehmen. 

Für die schnelle Übersicht empfiehlt sich auch cefconnect.com

 

Ob diese Besteuerungsregeln auch für Steuerinländer gilt, kann ich nicht sagen. Hier könnte ganz bestimmt @Taxadvisor etwas dazu sagen.

Share this post


Link to post
Taxadvisor
Posted
vor 3 Stunden von Life_in_the_sun:

hier ein paar Anmerkungen zum Thema Quellensteuer bei CEFs.

Einige CEFs zahlen die Ausschüttung oder Teile davon auch als ROC ( Return of Capital ) aus. Dieses ROC muss nicht immer aus dem NAV kommen, sondern kann auch wie bei ETY oder CLM aus Optionsgeschäften stammen und wird entsprechend den US Steuergesetzen anders als Dividende behandelt und als ROC klassifiziert. 

Bei ETY wird die gesamte Ausschüttung als ROC klassifiziert, bei CLM sind es immerhin ca 56,xx % .  

Dieser Anteil an den Ausschüttungen ist dann grundsätzlich ( für Steuerausländer ? ) zB bei IB oder captrader steuerfrei.

 

Die Daten kann man grundsätzlich den Quartals - Jahresberichten oder den SEC Filings der Fondsgesellschaften entnehmen. 

Für die schnelle Übersicht empfiehlt sich auch cefconnect.com

 

Ob diese Besteuerungsregeln auch für Steuerinländer gilt, kann ich nicht sagen. Hier könnte ganz bestimmt @Taxadvisor etwas dazu sagen.

Ohne mir den ganzen Thread durchzulesen: Das sollte nach dt. Recht als Investmentfonds gelten (da wohl keine PersGes). Damit sind alle Ausschüttungen, Veräußerungsgewinne und falls relevant (aufgrund der Ausschüttungen aber wohl eher nicht) Vorabpauschalen. Teilfreistellung wird regelmäßig auf Bankebene wohl nicht gewährt, Nachweis könnte im Rahmen der Veranlagung schwierig werden, ist aber grundsätzlich möglich, wenn "Anlagebedingungen", Vermögensaufstellungen etc. vorliegen.

 

Gruß

Taxadvisor

Share this post


Link to post
Life_in_the_sun
Posted · Edited by Life_in_the_sun
vor 8 Minuten von Taxadvisor:

Ohne mir den ganzen Thread durchzulesen: Das sollte nach dt. Recht als Investmentfonds gelten (da wohl keine PersGes). Damit sind alle Ausschüttungen, Veräußerungsgewinne und falls relevant (aufgrund der Ausschüttungen aber wohl eher nicht) Vorabpauschalen. Teilfreistellung wird regelmäßig auf Bankebene wohl nicht gewährt, Nachweis könnte im Rahmen der Veranlagung schwierig werden, ist aber grundsätzlich möglich, wenn "Anlagebedingungen", Vermögensaufstellungen etc. vorliegen.

 

Gruß

Taxadvisor

Ich denke das hilft schon mal ein wenig. Wird bei der Steuerklärung sicherlich etwas aufwendiger, aber lohnt sich mE bei entsprechender Positionsgöße.

Danke für Deine Hilfe.

Share this post


Link to post
Life_in_the_sun
Posted · Edited by Life_in_the_sun
Ergänzung

Nochmaliger Nachkauf gestern

 

Cornerstone Strategic Value

Ticker CLM

ISIN US21924B3024

$ 10,99

 

Damit habe ich die angestrebte Positionsgröße von 4500 Stück erreicht.

Späterer Nachkauf bei Kursrückgang nicht ausgeschlossen.

Share this post


Link to post
Life_in_the_sun
Posted

Kauf gestern

 

Clough Global Dividend and Income

Ticker GLV

ISIN US18913Y1038 

$ 9,69

Ausschüttung monatlich $ 0,1008 = 12,53 % pa 

 

CEF Mischfonds mit einer Assetklassenverteilung von

56,9x %. Aktien USA, Asien

39,34 % Bonds  US Treasury Notes und US Unternehmensanleihen - ca 84 % davon mit AAA - BBB Rating,  9,7 % BB - B, 4,92 % NR

Rest Preferred Shares, Optionen und Diverses

 

https://www.cloughglobal.com/glv?tab=tab2__holdings

Share this post


Link to post
Life_in_the_sun
Posted

 

CEF/ETF Income Laboratory

Stanford Chemist, Nick Ackerman, Alpha Male and Juan de la Hoz

 

Artikel aus SA

 

Return Of Capital Isn't Always Bad Revisited

Aug. 6, 2020 12:55 AM ET

 

====================

Return of capital is often a subject that is misunderstood for most newer closed-end fund investors. Just because a fund provides the tax character of "return of capital," doesn't mean that it is a negative for the fund. There are several things that closed-end fund managers can do to generate a "constructive" return of capital. This can have tax benefits too for an investor as a way of deferring tax obligations. Ultimately, return of capital reduces an investor's cost basis in the fund. The tax obligation is then not realized until the position is sold. This can be a great thing for an investor who maxes out contributions to other retirement savings accounts.

To highlight, we can take several excerpts from one of our own pieces posted on the matter last year. The full piece can be read here.

First of all, the most basic "test" to know if a fund is paying out a destructive return of capital;

“One of the simplest ways to know if a fund is utilizing destructive or constructive ROC is to watch its NAV. A growing NAV over a period of time indicates that the fund is earning its distribution. An eroding NAV will indicate that they really are merely returning your investment to you. An eroding NAV isn't a sustainable long-term investment and an investor will eventually see distribution cuts.”

This shouldn't be the be-all and end-all test though. As there are several funds that can generate ROC in other ways. As simply a pass-through entity, the tax character of the underlying investments is usually passed through to investors as well. This would primarily be realized in the MLP space. Although, REITs can also generate ROC too.

"MLPs distribute out ROC usually because of all the write-offs and depreciation they enjoy. MLPs own vast amounts of real estate and equipment, so the depreciation really adds up and pushes the ROC portion of their distributions to large amounts.”

Another area that we see ROC generated is in funds that utilize an options strategy. This one isn't as straight forward though and can be confusing to some investors.

“...primarily it is through realizing losses. That's because when a fund writes an option, they collect a premium that would usually be considered a capital gain and be taxed as such (generally a short-term holding period.) However, if the fund writes a call and collects a premium, they can offset this with an unrealized loss in the portfolio and turning it into a realized loss. Essentially, when a covered call "profits" it is because the underlying asset does not appreciate and the premium is considered a capital gain. If the underlying position declines in value it can then be turned into a realized loss that was offset from the premium received.”

Generating capital losses (realized losses) is another reason that a seemingly solid fund can distribute out ROC. Many funds throughout a sell-off still realize turnover in their portfolios. Essentially, generating capital losses to reposition their portfolios. If these realized losses aren't offset by realized gains throughout the year, then shareholders can get the benefit of the tax deferring ability of ROC. That is even while at the same time the underlying NAV is appreciating throughout the year.

Quick Summary

Closed-end funds (even some exchange-traded funds too!) can generate a return of capital as a tax classification, even while appreciating throughout the year. This has to do with the underlying positions passing through and holding their tax status as their distributed out to shareholders. It is also done by generating losses (while still appreciating via unrealized gains) on positions held. Finally, just everyday portfolio turnover can generate ROC if the position sold isn't offset by a capital gain.

For more quick reading on this subject, check out Eaton Vance's two-pager PDF that does a fantastic job explaining what is going on as well!

 

Return of Capital Distributions Demystified.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Life_in_the_sun
Posted

Cohen & Steers' Closed-End Opportunity Fund

Ticker FOF

ISIN US19248P1066

Ausschüttung $ 0,087 = 9,1x % pa 

 

FOF ist ein Fonds of Fonds mit ca 100 verschiedenen CEFs und ein paar ETFs und deckt damit fast die gesamten Assetklassen der verfügbaren CEFs ab.

Die TER ist mit 0,96 %  pa mEn günstig.

Ist vielleicht etwas für jemand der nicht in einen einzelnen CEF investieren will und eine Allokation der verschiedenen Strategien und Assets aufgrund der Depotgröße nicht in Frage kommt.

Aufteilung der Assetklassen:

55 %. Equity  Funds

23 %  Fixed  Income  Funds

15 %  Municipal  Funds

6%.    Commodity Funds

1 %.    Cash

 

Anlagen:

Fact Sheet

Prospekt 

 

Artikel aus SA vom 5.08.2020

von Steven Bavaria

 

Cohen & Steers' Closed-End Opportunity Fund: Getting Paid To Wait For CEFs To 'Revert To The Mean'

Aug. 05, 2020 2:01 PM ETCohen&Steers Closed-End Opportunity Fund (FOF)CEFL, CEFS, FCEF...53 Comments38 Likes

Summary

FOF has been called dull and boring over the years, but still gets the job done for investors seeking a professionally-managed, highly-diversified, "all-in-one" closed-end fund portfolio.

Its "discounts on discounts" combined with its solid distribution record and reduced underlying asset values driving up its yield make it attractive in this climate.

With the closed-end fund market typically inefficient and not always rational, it would not be surprising if it has overreacted to the fears and uncertainties in the larger macro world.

FOF allows us to ride out the storm while getting paid well currently (9.4%), with some upside if the overly beaten-down CEF market eventually "reverts to the mean."

FOF - The Bottom Line

Cohen & Steer's Closed End Opportunity Fund (FOF) is a closed-end fund that's a "fund of funds," owning more than 100 other closed-end funds, plus a few ETFs. That makes it a good vehicle for long-term income investors who recognize the advantages of CEFs, which we will discuss in detail later on, and want to achieve those results in a highly diversified, professionally and actively managed fund without having to do all the analytical and portfolio management work themselves. 

The CEF market, in general, tends to be a relatively small, inefficient and illiquid market, perfect for owning more complex and less transparent securities (HY bonds, leveraged loans, business development companies, REITs, preferred stocks, convertible bonds, etc.) that pay higher yields precisely because of the perceived additional risk and illiquidity. Those additional risks don't bother most CEF investors for whom income is more important than market price.

But all this makes CEFs the sort of market that "catches a fever" when other, larger markets only "catch a cold." In other words, the CEF market is quirkier, more idiosyncratic, less efficient and more likely to see its prices move more - in either direction - in response to lower-volume trading actions than larger, more liquid markets would. That means it may be more inclined to overreact to uncertainty and other concerns like we are experiencing today - financial, economic, political, and medical - than other, larger markets. Hence, CEFs may still be more price depressed and paying more attractive yields, compared to six months ago, than markets in general. FOF may be a good vehicle for harvesting those higher distribution yields, while also waiting for the CEF market as a whole to "revert to the mean" if, in fact, it has overreacted to the current situation.

Critics have continually pointed out that with funds-of-funds you have two layers of fees to contend with: FOF's own relatively modest management fee (0.96%) and the management fees of each of the funds it owns. What's often forgotten or ignored is the usually more-than-offsetting double layer of discounts that FOF investors benefit from. They can generally buy FOF shares at a discount from their underlying value (i.e. the prices of the shares FOF owns). But there's another level of discounts included in those prices, because FOF's own net asset value is based on the market prices of the funds it owns, which in turn are generally discounted from the real value of those funds' own holdings. So if we can buy FOF at a 5% discount and it buys its assets at a 5% discount, our overall discount on the ultimate underlying assets we own is over 10% (details below).

All of this is what makes me think that, despite all the risks our current investing environment contains, FOF represents a good vehicle (within a broadly diversified portfolio) for hunkering down and weathering the storm. That's why I own it personally and have also included it in two of my Inside the Income Factory model portfolios.

FOF: Background

When I wrote my first article about FOF being "On Sale" back in October 2014, it was considered a pretty boring fund that didn't seem to deserve much attention. And back then it didn't get much either, since before mine there hadn't been an article about FOF for two and a half years, and the next one didn't show up for almost another year and a half.

Since then it has gotten a lot more interest, with 10 articles in 2018 and 2019. Driving the additional interest has been the introduction of at least six more closed-end funds or ETF/ETNs of one sort or another that provide investors with a "fund of funds" approach to investing in the closed-end fund market. The six new ones I am familiar with are:

RiverNorth Opportunities Fund (RIV)

Invesco CEF Income Composite ETF (PCEF)

Amplify High Income ETF (YYY)

First Trust CEF Income Opportunity ETF (FCEF)

Saba Closed-End Funds ETF (CEFS)

UBS ETRACS Monthly Pay 2x Leverage Closed-End ETN (CEFL)

RIV is a closed-end fund, like FOF, with a shorter history but some of the same advantages we describe for FOF. (I recommend it to investors for further analysis and investigation, and own a small piece of it in my personal portfolio.) PCEF, YYY, FCEF, and CEFS are all exchange-traded funds (ETFs), and CEFL was a leveraged exchange-traded note whose price collapsed and was mandatorily redeemed during the crisis in March. Respected Seeking Alpha contributor @Left Banker wrote an excellent article last March comparing all seven fund-of-fund vehicles. At that time, just prior to the pandemic-induced crash, FOF was the clear favorite, in terms of its long-term record, with an average 10-year total return of just over 10%. With the drop in price since then, FOF's average 10-year total return has dropped to 7.75%, while the others have dropped as well. @Nick Ackerman also has done some great work on FOF in the past, most recently here.

The qualities that made FOF attractive back in 2014 continue today. Some are generic to closed-end funds as an investment vehicle, while others are unique to a fund-of-funds like FOF. 

Generic Closed-End Fund Advantages

Closed-end funds are ideal for income-oriented investors, especially those who follow an Income Factory strategy where we focus on the income and try, as best we can, to ignore short-term market gyrations that move the price around without disturbing the cash flow from the portfolio. Since we "create our own growth" by reinvesting and compounding our distributions, a drop in market price can actually help us by allowing us to reinvest and compound at bargain prices and higher than normal yields. 

That's where closed-end funds have particular advantages:

Because they are "closed," an investor can only liquidate and/or monetize their investment by selling shares in the market, and cannot force the fund to redeem them, the way traditional open-end mutual fund holders can. This essentially eliminates the "run on the fund" risk and makes closed-end funds ideal vehicles for investing in less liquid but often higher-yielding asset classes like high-yield bonds and loans, preferred stocks, convertible bonds, real estate, business development companies, and other more complex securities. 

But it gets even better because, since closed-end funds are sold on the open market, their prices can vary from what the exact net asset value per share is from day to day. That means investors, by timing their purchases, can often buy a fund at a discount from what the underlying net asset value per share actually is. In other words, you could buy a fund whose underlying net asset value ("NAV") per share is $100 for a price of $90; in other words, a discount of 10%. That means you would have $100 of assets working for you that you only paid $90 for. If the fund pays a dividend of 9% on its $100 of assets, any investor who paid $90 for it is actually collecting a distribution yield of 10%, since the $9 distribution represents 10% of the discounted price paid. That's extra cash received for taking less risk, since normally we'd have to take more risk to earn a 10% yield than to earn a 9% yield. But in this case we get a 10% yield for only taking a 9% risk.

Better yet, closed-end funds allow us to get the benefit of cheap institutional leverage, which boosts the potential yield to investors above the "natural" yield of the underlying asset class. That's because closed-end funds can borrow up to 50% of their net assets (most don't go above 35-40%, just to play it safe) at the low rates available to institutional investors. This is particularly attractive at times like this when rates are at super-low levels. So a fund that invests in, say, high yield bonds at yields averaging 7% might borrow one third of its net asset value at 2% and re-invest it at 7%. That additional spread of 5%, divided by 3 (if it borrows 1/3rd of the net assets) equals about 1.7% extra margin for each share, bringing the gross yield per share to 8.7% or so. Suppose, in addition, you bought the share at a 10% discount, and therefore only paid 90% for the right to collect that 8.7% distribution? Then the yield on your discounted cost becomes 9.7%. 

Those two features (discounted prices and cheap leverage) are the "alchemy" that explains how closed-end funds can routinely pay higher distribution yields than open-end funds or private un-leveraged portfolios that own similar asset classes. 

The story gets even better with FOF, since you can typically buy it at a discount from its own net asset value, thus providing investors the additional advantage of "discounts on discounts."

Back when I wrote my first article about FOF, the fund was selling at a discount of 9.73%. That meant a buyer of FOF paid only 90.27 cents on the dollar for FOF's portfolio of other funds. (Remember that FOF's NAV is measured as the market price of the funds it owns). But the funds in FOF's portfolio were, in turn, selling at discounts in the market that averaged, at that time, 9.18% of the market value of their underlying assets. So FOF's carrying cost (its net asset value) of its own assets was only 90.82% of their actual value, and we investors, in turn, were able to buy FOF itself at only 90.27% of that value. When you put the two together, buying FOF at a 9.73% discount, with FOF holding assets valued at a 9.18% discount from their underlying value, the result was a total discount of 18%. 

(How did we compute that? You pay 90.82% for FOF shares, and FOF paid an average of only 90.27% of the net asset value for the shares of funds it holds, which means FOF shareholders' net cost of the underlying assets FOF owns is 90.82% times 90.27%, which equals 81.9%, which is a discount of 18%.)

One effect of this was to boost FOF's yield up to about 8.3%, which seemed pretty attractive back in 2014. 

Today: Discounts Smaller, Distribution Yield Higher

Today, the discounts are smaller than they were in the past. But their impact on FOF shareholders is still quite positive. FOF sells at a 5.34% discount, so as investors we pay 94.66 cents on the dollar to buy the fund's net asset value. Meanwhile, the underlying funds that make up FOF's net assets are selling at discounts averaging 4.87%, or $95.13 on the dollar of their underlying value. Putting that together, when we buy FOF at its discounted market price, we are paying 94.6% times 95.13%, which equals 90%, of the ultimate underlying net asset values of the funds that FOF holds in its portfolio. That's a 10% discount, which is attractive, but not as attractive as the 18% discount we paid when I first "discovered" FOF and wrote about it over five years ago. 

But, despite the lower discounts on FOF and on the funds it owns, FOF appears even more attractive today than it was back then. It's paying the same $.087 dividend now that it did then (the same annual rate, although it's paying it in adjusted monthly payments rather than quarterly, which most investors prefer), but the distribution yield is now 9.4%, more than 1% higher than five years ago. While it's hard to project the possibility of distribution cuts (here is an article about it), the low interest rate environment today makes leverage even more attractive for most CEFs, increasing their net margin and further supporting their current distribution levels. FOF does not leverage itself, but most of its holdings do, so their reduced cost of leverage should help support the distribution payments they all make upstream to FOF, in turn supporting FOF's cash flow and distribution.

How do I feel about this?

Five years ago, large "discounts on discounts" across the board in the closed-end fund world pushed up the yield and made us feel we'd found a bargain in FOF. This time the discounts on discounts (or "double coupons" as I sometimes think of it) have been helpful, but the real catalyst for the higher yield has been the drop in prices for both FOF and for the closed-end funds it holds.

In that sense, I think FOF is highly representative (as we would expect it to be) of what has happened and will continue to happen across the board in the closed-end fund market. Many, many asset classes are depressed in price below where they have been in recent years. Many funds have dropped their distributions, some a lot, some a little and some not at all. I think, in general, the anticipation of distribution cuts has been worse than the reality so far, and that has driven down prices beyond what the actual drop in distributions would have required. 

That means for most funds, especially those that have dropped their distributions either modestly or not at all, distribution yields have risen from what they were before. This may be the market adjusting yields rationally, to a higher level justified by the increased uncertainty and risk that the fund may in fact decrease its distribution in the future. Or in some cases it may be an irrational fear or an otherwise larger price decrease than is warranted.

We generally expect the closed-end fund market to be inefficient and somewhat irrational even in normal times, and since these are NOT normal times, we might expect the market to be even less efficient and more likely to overreact than usual. Therefore it would not surprise me to see closed-end funds, across the board, offering an unusually generous risk premium to investors during the current period. I don't claim to be able to analyze or project exactly which asset classes or industry categories are most at risk, or which risk premiums are more or less generous or justified than others. But I think FOF's current 9.4% distribution represents such a "generous risk premium," and the fund seems like a good, highly diversified vehicle for participating in what we hope will at some point be a "reversion to the mean" for funds and sectors that have been overly punished by the market. That's why I have selected it for several of the model portfolios that I have shared with our Inside the Income Factory and with my other followers, and hold it in my personal portfolios.

I also should note there is still considerable uncertainty and danger in our political, economic and medical environment. While I think FOF is a highly-regarded, solid, conservative fund with a better-than-average chance of surviving whatever challenges lie ahead, nothing is assured and investors should make their own decisions about how cautious they need to be as we wait for our future to become clearer.

 

Factsheet_FOF.pdf FOF_Prospectus.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Life_in_the_sun
Posted

Tom Roseen

Head of Research Services Refinitiv Lipper

Refinitiv Lipper The Month in Closed-End Funds: July 2020

FMIR-US-CE-M-20200731-TR.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Life_in_the_sun
Posted
Am 25.7.2020 um 15:44 von Life_in_the_sun:

Ja habe ich heute morgen Morgen auch per alert mail erhalten.

Nicht so schön ( für mich ) da der Preis jetzt wahrscheinlich erstmal um gut 5 % sinkt. Die Hälfte davon haben wir ja gestern schon „gesehen“.:w00t:

siehe Dokument https://ir.ofscreditcompany.com/news-releases/news-release-details/ofs-credit-company-announces-results-stockholder-elections

Soll aber auch eher ein Langzeitinvestment sein. Also Geduld.

So kann man sich täuschen. 

Der Preis geht nicht runter sondern steil nach oben. Per Heute bin ich bereits 11 % im Plus :smoke:

Share this post


Link to post
Life_in_the_sun
Posted · Edited by Life_in_the_sun

Kauf gestern

Herzfeld Caribbean Basin Funds

Ticker CUBA

ISIN US42804T1060

$ 3,76

Ausschüttung quartalsweise $ 0,15525 = 16,52 % *

 

Von der Seite des Emittenten:

Das Anlageziel des Herzfeld Caribbean Basin Fund ist langfristiges Kapitalwachstum.  Um dieses Ziel zu erreichen, investiert der Fonds in Emittenten, die nach Ansicht des Fondsmanagement wahrscheinlich von den wirtschaftlichen, politischen, strukturellen und technologischen Entwicklungen in den Ländern des Karibischen Beckens profitieren werden, d.h. in Kuba, Jamaika, Trinidad und Tobago, den Bahamas, der Dominikanischen Republik, Barbados, Aruba, Haiti, den Niederländischen Antillen, dem Commonwealth Puerto Rico, Mexiko, Honduras, Guatemala, Belize, Costa Rica, Panama, Kolumbien und Venezuela.  Der Fonds investiert mindestens 80% seines Gesamtvermögens in eine breite Palette von Wertpapieren von Emittenten, darunter auch in Unternehmen mit Sitz in den USA, die in den Ländern des Karibischen Beckens in erheblichem Umfang Handel mit diesen Ländern treiben und daraus beträchtliche Einnahmen erzielen.

Anmerkung: Venezuela darf man wohl streichen.

Top Holdings

MasTec Inc. 15.59%

Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. 7.24%

Popular Inc 6.39%

Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd.  6.31%

First BanCorp.  5.65%

Copa Holdings SA Class 5.13%

Lennar Corp. 4.84%

Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corp.  3.71%

Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. 3.09%

NextEra Energy Inc. 2.99%

 

Diesen CEF habe ich schon lange auf meiner Watchliste, wollte ihn eigentlich im Januar/Februar kaufen und dann kam Corona. Der Rest ist Geschichte. Der Preis rauschte von ca $ 6,50 am 10.02. auf $ 2,91 am 2.04 gen Süden. Der NAV lag in dieser Zeit zwischen ca $ 8 und $ 3,67. Das heißt der CEF wurde mit einem Discount von 17 % bis in der Spitze 26 % in den letzten 52 Wochen gehandelt ( alle Daten cefconnect).

Die Idee dieses Investment ist , die Chancen für die Zeit nach Corona zu nutzen. Da der Tourismus für die Karibik bei ca. 30 Millionen Touristen wohl die größte Einnahmequelle ist und logischerweise auch für die Unternehmen die dort tätig sind, dürften sich die Kurse dieser Unternehmen nach einer Normalisierung des der Situation deutlich erhöhen. Ich denke hier besonders an Werte wie Royal Caribbean, Norwegain Cruise deren Kurse bei jeder Corona Meldung in den turbulenten Tagen der Korrektur mit bis zu +- 20 % beim Aktienkurs reagiert haben.

Der CEF ist sicherlich kein Core Investment, aber eine vielversprechende Chance auf die wirtschaftliche Erholung der Reisebranche bzw der Karibischen Region und sollte, so der Plan, in den nächsten 6 - 15 Monaten durchaus realistisch sein.

 

Ein Hinweis zu den Ausschüttungen. Der Fonds hat seit  2019 einen MDP ( managed distribution plan ) von 15 % des NAV. Das heißt, steigt der NAV, steigt automatisch auch die Ausschüttung. So lag die Ausschüttung von 09/2019 - 03/ 2020 bei $ 0,2846 pro Quartal. Die letzte Ausschüttung am 30.06. lag entsprechend dem NAV bei $ 0,15525. Entgegen einigen anderen CEFs die ihre Ausschüttungen zum Teil drastisch gesenkt haben, hat Herzfeld diese MDP ( bisher ) nicht aufgegeben. 

Sollte der Fonds zu seinen alten Kursen/NAV zurückkehren, erhöht sich dann eben auch die Ausschüttung bezogen auf den Kaufpreis $ 3,76 auf über 30 % pa .  Man profitiert dann vom Kursanstieg und zusätzlich von einer steigenden Ausschüttung.

Bis dahin tröste ich mich mit 16,5 % pa Ausschüttung.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Life_in_the_sun
Posted

Artikel aus SA vom 11.08.

 

Nick Ackerman

 

Retirement

Retirement Lab: Path From Growth Needs To Income Needs

Aug. 11, 2020 9:25 PM ETBMEZ, BTT, EIM...4 Comments5 Likes

Summary

Transitioning from growth needs to income needs can be easy with CEFs and ETFs.

Combining these investments, along with other investment vehicles, is also easy due to diversification.

This is a basic introduction that can help newer investors or those just entering retirement.

Written by Nick Ackerman, co-produced by Stanford Chemist

At some point in life, an investor will want to go into retirement. Unless you are lucky enough to receive a large inheritance or receive a financial windfall, it is very likely you've saved your whole life. Perhaps it was into something like a 401(k) for most individuals. A 401(k) is a perfect vehicle for continually setting money aside for when retirement comes. With this, an individual is using a dollar-cost average method - a preferred method to take advantage of peaks and valleys of the market over your life.

Now the happy years are here and you are ready to be free! Free to do what you want and when you want to. The downfall of this is the transition that one will ultimately make between becoming a growth investor to an income investor. This can certainly be a daunting transition. There are many that don't truly understand this concept either. If you are reading this, however, then I believe you are definitely in a different league. You are taking the right steps to understand and further your education in the financial arena. This will pay off in dividends for you, figuratively and literally.

Simply put, as you were working hard over the years, you were receiving earned income. Unless you were fortunate enough to work for an employer with a pension, you will want to be looking to replace this income. Utilizing closed-end funds and exchange-traded funds can, and will, provide you with a form of steady income. This can be used as a replacement from when the paychecks stop.

(Source)

In other words, it is that need of an income replacement that pushes you from being a growth investor to an income investor. The basic being that a "growth investor" isn't concerned with their values at all. They are in it for the long term. "Income investors" do tend to have a need of being more conservative, as they don't have this regular income of a job coming in anymore. It certainly doesn't mean that they can't just as simply be long-term focused either. Merely that it might just take a bit more paying attention to what you're investing in.

Closed-End Funds

CEFs offer the higher juiced-up distributions. We call them distributions because this more correctly classifies them. The source of "dividends" comes from more than just income, it can come from income, capital gains or a return of capital. Return of capital isn't always bad either, as we have delved into in the past.

Another reason CEFs can offer more monthly or quarterly income is for the fact that they can use more complex strategies. This can include the utilization of leverage or options strategies. Both of these strategies can potentially enhance returns, or even potentially mitigate drawdowns - in the case of options being used. These strategies do involve a more actively managed portfolio. This involves investment managers running the fund day to day. That also increases costs for the funds to operate, increasing their expense ratios.

This is exactly where CEFs can fill a role though in your transition to retirement; they can make sense in any one's portfolio as a way to juice yields overall. The average distribution rate for all CEFs as of July 3rd is 7.95% (using CEFConnect's data.) This is much higher than we would see for individual stocks and even higher than the typical ETF.

Of course, there are dangers, just like any other investment vehicle. In the case of CEFs, two specific dangers exist. The use of leverage in a downturn can amplify the drawdowns in sharp sell-offs. This is exactly what we see time and time again. Another "danger" in CEFs is the fact that they can trade at premiums and discounts. This isn't so much of a danger as it is an opportunity for vigilant investors to get some excellent entry prices.

Exchange-Traded Funds

With almost 7000 ETFs worldwide in 2019, there are certainly a few out there to meet an investor's specific and unique needs. These are generally a passive way to invest, although there are more and more active ETFs coming to market, it seems. This passive nature can cause expenses to drop significantly. However, the passive nature of these investments can also result in some strange and unfortunate manners. This can happen when a portfolio rebalances at the wrong time.

This isn't to suggest that ETFs don't deserve a place in a portfolio. One just needs to be aware that they are essentially on "auto" mode and will carry out their investment policy, regardless of negative consequences. They absolutely do fit a place in an investor's portfolio.

There are also ETFs that do have extra juiced-up yields, like CEFs. Although typically, we see the vast majority of ETFs only pay dividends (i.e., only the income received and passed through). I say this as I am on the hunt for adding even more ETFs to my mixture of investments. I personally hold a number of dividend growth stocks too.

With all of this being said, ETFs ultimately can fit any objective you need them to, whereas CEFs are typically more limited to income-focused investors, though there are always exceptions to everything. There are ETFs for growth, capital preservation and income. There are even those that would fit in the speculation category.

Fitting CEFs and ETFs In A Retirement Portfolio

This is one of the greatest things: both ETFs and CEFs can fit in any income investor's retirement portfolio. This is due to their diversified nature, which is able to provide exposure to any asset class or sector you can think of. They are also an excellent fit for being able to meet that income objective that investors have when they are looking for paycheck replacement.

Due to funds' diversified nature and focus on paying out distributions and dividends, they are a perfect fit for income-focused investors. Those would typically include the retired folks that we have been discussing today - although not always!

Another added benefit of their diversified nature is that it really does make them an easy fit in an already diversified portfolio. If one is a dividend growth investor and already holds several individual stocks, adding a broad-based fund should not throw this balance off. I would even say that an investor can have a portfolio of only CEFs or only ETFs - or both investment options combined.

If you are holding a basket of growth-focused mutual funds or ETFs from a 401(k), then the transition to income-focused funds can be easy as well. If in a tax-advantaged account (such as a 401(k) or IRA), then no tax obligations will hit you with simply selling one and buying into another group.

(Source)

Investors can even set up portfolios to lower tax obligations. That's why municipal investments can be a huge help for a retiree. While having lower tax obligations is great, the other side of this is that municipal investments are a relatively safer place to invest too! We will use muni funds below in an example of risks and limitations.

From Growth To Income - Several Examples For Constructing An Income Portfolio

Digging into a few funds, we can get a better idea of how to add some funds into a portfolio and specific roles that some can play.

We can use funds to gain exposure to a specific area of the market. One of those funds is the BlackRock Health Sciences Trust II (BMEZ). This is to take advantage of the strength in the healthcare sector. This fund also has a term structure with a large discount. The term is still out, as it just only recently launched, but a term structure to close the discount level as the liquidation date nears. This is because at that time, an investor is given NAV back. This is unlike perpetually trading CEFs that may never trade at premiums or near par. Additionally, this fund pays 4.93%, which is actually lower than a lot of other CEFs in general.

For example, on a great muni fund to hold - let's take a look at the PIMCO Municipal Income Fund III (PMX). The yield on this fund is 4.58%. However, the taxable equivalent yield for those with a 24% federal rate comes to 6.03%. The higher your federal rate, the more of the benefit. The fund is a national muni fund too, meaning you are gaining exposure to several different geographies of the U.S. You are also in the very capable hands of PIMCO management to operate the fund from day to day.

One might even want to consider adding more international exposure to one's portfolio. We can take a look at the Eaton Vance Tax-Advantaged Global Dividend Income Fund (ETG). The fund provides exposure to a diversified basic of equities (even some small allocation to fixed-income) and has a global tilt to its portfolio, allowing professional management for access to investments around the world. The fund currently pays a distribution yield of 8.09%. This is paid on a monthly basis. All three of the funds discussed so far actually pay on a monthly basis. That can be significantly more attractive to income investors in retirement than a quarterly payment.

To go even further into the global assets and get more specific, let's turn to an ETF. The Global X SuperDividend Emerging Markets ETF (SDEM) provides exposure to the niche market of emerging economies. At the same time, it provides a dividend yield of 8.17%. Another monthly payer here too. While the emerging markets are traditionally more volatile than mature markets, this ETF allows broad diversification across several geographies and companies. This means that an investor is not carrying the risk of an individual company announcing bad earnings or accounting fraud. Though sector risk or systematic risk can still play a role, of course.

Risks And Limitations

To highlight the risks of leverage and discount/premiums, consider a brief example of comparing the Vanguard Tax-Exempt Bond ETF (VTEB) to the BlackRock Municipal 2030 Target Term Trust (BTT), the Eaton Vance Municipal Bond Fund (EIM) and the Eaton Vance Municipal Income Trust (EVN).

Check out how VTEB performed relative to the broader market. We can look at the time frame from February 19th, 2020 until March 23rd. That time period represents the time from peak to the lows for the broader market we saw in the COVID-19-related sell-off.

Data by YCharts

BTT, EIM and EVN all use leverage. This does increase the downside even further, on an NAV, basis during a downturn. Of course, it helps to the upside as well. Taking a look below, we can observe both the discount/premiums playing out and how these CEFs dropped more than the ETF did above, for the same exact time frame.

Data by YCharts  

This factor leads to how ETFs might be a better fit for some income investors. For investors that may not want to contend with discount/premium levels in CEFs, ETFs still provide plenty of diversification.

Another area of concern for ETF and CEF investors is distribution or dividends cuts. We have covered this topic extensively in the past, though it is worth noting briefly again. It is unfortunate, but there is just no such thing as a guarantee in the investment world. Individual companies can cut just the same, which would impact our S&P 500 yields too. The risks are there for CEFs though, as we referred to above. Funds utilizing leverage and premium/discounts that exist.

One of the things to help mitigate the losses is to reinvest all or at least a portion of your investment income. Of course, if you are retired and looking to use that income for day-to-day living, then reinvesting a portion makes the most sense here. Reinvesting dividends can also lead to a reduction in the risk of inflation eating away your buying power.

It is also important to note that dividend cuts shouldn't be seen as the worst thing in the world. Sometimes it can be used as a very attractive entry price as the name sells off on the back of a cut. This could also be a time to lower one's cost basis by picking up shares. Essentially, adding to the position will also help mitigate the damage of the cut in income coming in.

Finally, when investing in ETFs and CEFs, you are getting a diversified basket of funds. While diversification can play a key role in the longer-term success of an investor, that also means you are holding all the good positions with the bad. When selecting individual companies, you can potentially pick only the "good" - those that perform much better than their peers overall.

Conclusion

It is easy to fit CEFs and ETFs in any type of investor's portfolio. This is especially true of ETFs, where there are so many that there is certainly something out there for one's needs. In the case of CEFs, they also have a broad mixture of varying asset classes and sectors. In fact, the bulk of my portfolio is in CEFs. The difference here being that CEFs do typically fit the script for an income-focused investor better.

(Source)

CEFs' juicy yields help implement that needed cash flow replacement in retirement. You've spent your whole life saving up for retiring, now it is time to put those funds to use in diversified funds that can help you live your life to the fullest! With our recent launch of the ETF Income Portfolio, we are just adding yet another huge source of investment opportunities. This all leads to what an investor needs to build their own income-generating portfolio.

Disclosure: I am/we are long BMEZ, ETG. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

 

Anmerkung Charts lassen sich leider aus der App von SA nicht kopieren. Deshalb fehlen sie hier.

 

Das wäre doch mal ein gutes Thema um eine Diskussion hier im Thread anzustoßen. ;)

Betrifft ja im Grunde irgendwann jeden und gerade bei denen die noch jung sind, sollte das Thema Rentenlücke für die Betrachtung der eigenen zukünftigen Situation nicht unberücksichtigt bleiben.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Life_in_the_sun
Posted
Am 25.7.2020 um 16:26 von Life_in_the_sun:

Gestern Kauf zu  $ 2,96

First Trust Specialty Finance

Ticker FGB

ISIN US33733G1094

Ausschüttung $ 0,135 pro Quartal = 18,31 % pa

 

Da die Seite  http://www.ftportfolios.com/Retail/cef/cefsummary.aspx?Ticker=FGB vermutlich durch Geo Blocking Für mich nicht erreichbar ist, kann ich nur den link zu cefconnect.com mit einem verkürztem Überblick einstellen.

https://www.cefconnect.com/fund/FGB

Sollte jemand den Prospekt hier als PDF einstellen, wäre das sehr hilfreich. Besten dank im Voraus.

Hier hat sich mein warten ausgezahlt. Der Preis lag vor gut 4 Wochen bei $ 3,25 , was einem Premium auf den NAV von knapp 20 % entsprach. 

Aktuell liegt der Aufschlag bei ca 6 % zum NAV.

 

Die Branche der Special Finance Companys ( BDCs und mReits ) wurde im Crash deutlich runtergeprügelt. Sollte sich die Lage entspannen und davon sollte man ausgehen ( don‘t fight the Fed) sollten sich hier durchaus Chancen ergeben. Da mir ein Investment in Einzelwerte zu viel Risiko enthält, fiel die Wahl auf FGB. 

 

 

 

Business Wire 

Meldung vom 11.08.

 

First Trust Specialty Finance and Financial Opportunities Fund Decreases its Quarterly Distribution to $0.0825 Per Share

First Trust Specialty Finance and Financial Opportunities Fund (the "Fund") (NYSE: FGB) has decreased its regularly scheduled quarterly distribution to $0.0825 per share from $0.135 per share The distribution will be payable on August 31, 2020, to shareholders of record as of August 24, 2020. The ex-dividend date is expected to be August 21, 2020. 

 

Ausschüttung bei meinem Kaufpreis von $ 2,96 immer noch 11,14 % pa . 

Der Markt sieht die Reduzierung der Ausschüttung eher positiv. Kursplus gestern knapp 1 % auf nunmehr $ 3,18.

Share this post


Link to post
Life_in_the_sun
Posted · Edited by Life_in_the_sun

Kauf am Freitag

 

Templeton Dragon Fund

Ticker TDF

US88018T1016

$ 22,82

Ausschüttung zweimal Jährlich****

 

Anlagephilosophie des Fonds

Ziel des Fonds ist ein langfristiges Kapitalwachstum zu erreichen. Unter normalen Marktbedingungen wird der Fonds mindestens 45% seines Gesamtvermögens in Beteiligungspapiere chinesischer Unternehmen investieren. Der Fonds kann auch bis zu 20% seines Gesamtvermögens in Aktienpapiere Japans und 35% in der Republik Korea, Taiwan, den Philippinen, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapur, Indonesien, Sri Lanka, Indien, Pakistan, Bangladesch, Australien, Neuseeland oder (in Zukunft, wenn es dem Fonds gestattet ist, auf diese Weise zu investieren) Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar oder Kambodscha investieren. Der Fonds kann auch bis zu 20% in Schuldverschreibungen chinesischer Unternehmen investieren. Investitionen außerhalb Chinas und Hongkongs werden in Unternehmen getätigt, die einen bedeutenden Teil ihres Einkommens erzielen oder einen bedeutenden Teil ihres Vermögens in China investieren oder aus China beziehen.....

Allerdings ist der Fond zZ zu ca 97 % in China,  ca 1,0 % in Taiwan und ca 0,89 % in Hongkong investiert.

****Der Fonds schüttet jeweils im September und Dezember seine Erträge und einen Teil der Kursgewinne aus. In 2019 $ 2,09,  was bei einem NAV von ca $ 20 dann eben ca 10 % pa entsprach.

Z.Z wird der Fond mit einem Abschlag zum NAV von 14,7 % gehandelt.

Nach meiner Einschätzung ein solider Asien Fonds, auch wenn das Portfolio zZ extrem auf China konzentriert ist. Offensichtlich verspricht sich das Fondsmanagement hier mittelfristig die besten Ertragschancen in den asiatischen Märkten.

 

Anlagen:

Fact Sheet

Portfolio

 

Morningstar TR der letzten 10 Jahre im Vergleich zur Benchmark MSCI ACWI ex USA und China Region

 

94E742E0-4B39-4AA7-9D6F-B82EF5191ABE.png

581-FF.pdf 581-portfolio-holdings.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Life_in_the_sun
Posted

Kauf am Freitag

ABERDEEN AUSTRALIA EQUITY FUND

Ticker IAF

ISIN US0030111035

$ 4,74

Ausschüttung quartalsweise $ 0,12 = 10 % pa 

 

Anlagephilosophie des Fonds

Dieser Fonds strebt einen langfristigen Kapitalzuwachs durch Investitionen vor allem in Beteiligungspapiere australischer Unternehmen an, die an der australischen Börse notiert sind. Sein sekundäres Ziel sind laufende Erträge, die sich aus Dividenden und Zinsen auf australische Unternehmens- und Staatspapiere ergeben. Der Fonds wird mindestens 80% seines Nettovermögens in Aktienpapiere einschließlich Stammaktien, Vorzugsaktien und wandelbaren Aktien australischer Unternehmen investieren, die an der ASX notiert sind.

Aufteilung des Portfolio zZ 70 % Australien, 14 % Neuseeland, 11 % UK, 3 % USA. Anzahl der Gesamtpositionen im Portfolio 35.

Der Fonds hat einen MDP der die Ausschüttungen festlegt:

Your Fund’s distribution policy (the “Distribution Policy”) is to provide investors with a stable quarterly distribution out of current income, supplemented by realized capital gains and, to the extent necessary, paid-in capital. In March 2020, the Board determined the rolling distribution rate to be 10% for the 12- month period commencing with the distribution payable in June 2020. This policy will be subject to regular review by the Board.
This stock distribution will automatically be paid in newly issued shares of the Fund unless otherwise instructed by the shareholder. Shares of common stock will be issued at the lower of the net asset value (“NAV”) per share or the market price per share with a floor for the NAV of not less than 95% of the market price. Fractional shares will generally be settled in cash, except for registered shareholders with book entry accounts at Computershare Investor Services who will have whole and fractional shares added to their account

Shareholders may request to be paid their quarterly distributions in cash instead of shares of common stock by providing advance notice to the bank, brokerage or nominee who holds their shares

 

Der Fonds Ist sicherlich kein Core Position oder Outperformer und daher auch nur zur Diversifikation des Portfolios gedacht.

Preis/NAV Discount zZ 12,5 % .

 

Morningstar TR der letzten 10 Jahre im Vergleich zur Benchmark MSCI ACWI ex USA

 

Anlage

Fact Sheet

 

 

 

 

 

 

28B00519-0905-499C-A8CD-CE7DF2F217CC.png

[121902]-[CD]-IAF.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Life_in_the_sun
Posted

Der CEF Thread hat in 6 Monaten immerhin über 6000 Zugriffe gehabt.

Das freut mich.

Allerdings will keine rechte Diskussion, Fragen zum Thema, Kritik oder Austausch von Ideen entstehen. 

Die Zugriffe werden und da bin ich mir sicher nicht nur von den Kollegen der ETF Fraktion kommen.

Woran liegt es ??

Da man Umfragen, soweit ich weiß, nur am Anfang eines Threads erstellen kann, muß ich jetzt wohl improvisieren.

Die Antworten sind multiple choice ( Max 2 )

1. Thema interessiert mich, habe jedoch bisher keine Erfahrung

2. Thema interessiert mich, da ich Ideen für mein Investment nach MIFID suche

3. Bin neugierig, zeig uns endlich mal Dein Portfolio 

4. Bin eher der stille Leser und Profiteur

5. Ich kenne mich in dem Thema selbst gut aus und halte in meinem Depot CEFs

6. Ich kann CEFs bei meiner Bank nicht handeln

7. Thema finde ich uninteressant 

 

Da bin ich jetzt mal gespannt ;)

Share this post


Link to post
reko
Posted · Edited by reko

Du scheinst dich auf geschlossene Fonds mit US prefered Shares (das entspricht meist mehr den deutschen Nachranganleihen als den Vorzugsaktien) zu konzentrieren. Der "Scherbenhaufen" kann sehr interessant sein, aber in jeden Einzelfall anders und sehr speziell. Da verlasse ich mich nicht auf das Management eines geschlossenen Fonds - in einen offenen Fonds erst recht nicht.

Share this post


Link to post
Ritter Kunibert
Posted

Ich scheue die Steuerproblematik und weitere Investitionen in den USD, aber auch generell in Währungen, in denen ich nicht meine Brötchen bezahlen kann. Hab schon genug außerhalb Euro.

Share this post


Link to post
Life_in_the_sun
Posted
vor 3 Stunden von reko:

Du scheinst dich auf geschlossene Fonds mit US prefered Shares (das entspricht meist mehr den deutschen Nachranganleihen als den Vorzugsaktien) zu konzentrieren. Der "Scherbenhaufen" kann sehr interessant sein, aber in jeden Einzelfall anders und sehr speziell. Da verlasse ich mich nicht auf das Management eines geschlossenen Fonds - in einen offenen Fonds erst recht nicht.

Nein, ich habe nicht einen einzigen CEF der vorwiegend in Preferred Shares investiert.

Mein Portfolio besteht zum größten Teil aus CEFs die in Aktien investieren, aber auch Senior Loans, CLOs, Corporate Bonds, Staatsanleihen, hier auch EM.

 

Der Vorteil von CEFs, gerade im Rentenbereich ist der Zugang von Papieren zu denen normale Investoren normalerweise keinen Zugang haben, deren Stückelung bei $ 100.000 oder $ 200.000 liegt, oder eben nach MIFID II für Privatinvestoren überhaupt nicht mehr handelbar sind. 

Ein Rentenportfolio, sagen wir mal mit 100 Positionen ist, einmal abgesehen von dem Invest, auch von der Anzahl der Positionen kaum zu beherrschen.

 

Geschlossene Fonds im Bezug auf CEFs bezieht sich auf das bei der Auflegung festgelegte Volumen, nicht auf die Positionen.

Hier gibt es mitunter ein turnover der Positionen von bis zu 100 % im Jahr. Beispiel ist hier der ACP. Der hat jetzt in wirtschaftlich turbulenten Zeiten das gesamte Portfolio gedreht und bietet bei überschaubarem Risiko ( Rating BBB - B ) zZ 13,5x % pa bei monatlicher Ausschüttung.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...