Proper comparisons are essential for long-term investment success.
If, upon entering a grocery store, you were told that pork is cheap, and you were already inclined to purchase a pound or two of pork, you might head over to the butcher's counter to check out the price. If the butcher then shouted out to you "Yes, it's cheap! Cheaper than the ballpoint pens over in aisle five," well, you would probably assume these were the ravings of a lunatic, chuckle to yourself, and go about your business.
Cheap is a relative term. Cheap compared with what? There has to be another price against which we can make a comparison. Is pork cheap compared with where it was priced last week? Is it cheap compared with other animal protein, such as a pound of beef? Most importantly, if you come at it from an investment standpoint, is it cheap compared with what it will be priced next week--when I actually need it for a family dinner?
It's the last question that, in my experience, trips up investors time and again. For, as surely you can realize, we can't know definitely--and most of us would say even remotely--what the future holds. We don't even know what the price of pork will be next week. So, how can we, as investors, have any certainty what the price of our investments will be worth next week, let alone next year or five years from now?
Closed-end fund, or CEF, investors make comparisons akin to figuring out the price of pork all the time. In CEF investing, there are at least two mistakes investors make all the time. First, they get too caught up in the discount and premium price of a CEF. Second, they fail to look at the proper relative relationship when seeking a CEF. Let's make sure you don't fall into this trap.
To begin with, funds that are structured as closed-end funds are not mutual funds. Sure, you can treat them that way. You can also treat them as stocks of corporations. In truth, they are somewhere in between. If it is an unleveraged CEF, it's going to behave more like a mutual fund; if it is a leveraged CEF, it's going to behave more like a stock. I think of CEF shares as the stocks of micro-capitalized corporations which have, as their sole business, the investment of capital in a portfolio of securities.
Now, a couple of guidelines spring from that starting point. First, as I see them as companies, I want to figure out what their underlying businesses are. So, I divide them into groups. This takes a lot of time and effort, but I guarantee you that successful CEF investors have done this. I think of CEF investment professionals like Thomas Herzfeld and his team, who manage the recently launched Virtus Herzfeld VHFAX or Patrick Galley and Steve O'Neill of RiverNorth who manage--among other funds--RiverNorth Core Opportunity RNCOX. If you read their books, interviews, and articles and talk to them long enough, you'll quickly understand that they don't look at a CEF's discount but at a CEF's relative discount. Relative to what? Relative to its own history and to its sector. Well, in order to have a sector, the CEFs first need to be grouped together into sectors.
So, that's the first order of business. As there are--give or take--600 CEFs with consolidations and IPOs, it's a dynamic list. And, the lists of various investors differ. For instance, you may split the list into two groups: fixed-income and equity. My list contains more than 50 sectors. It doesn't matter how finely you slice the universe, just as long as you're comfortable with your own system and that it is logical.
The second guideline that springs from my perspective of CEFs as small corporations is that any comparisons I want to perform are made within those sectors. If you invest in equities, in my experience, you won't get very far if you are not careful with your comparisons. To decide to invest in General Electric
This second guideline makes CEF investing come alive, in my opinion. Let's just take a quick example, and I'll delve deeper next week. My U.S. equity infrastructure equity sector grouping contains a dozen funds that I consider to be focused primarily on infrastructure investments. Because I make a living conducting CEF research, I have the time to create crazy spreadsheets--yours don't have to be so crazy, or you can piggy-back off of my research. Due to a myopic focus on all things CEF-related, I can see that ING Infrastructure, Industrials and Materials IDE is offering the highest distribution rate at share price (9.16%) of the group, is one of only two unleveraged funds in the group, and is currently trading at the group's median discount (4.4%). If I'm interested, I can delve further into how the fund is generating such a high distribution rate off of its unleveraged portfolio and whether that 4.4% discount represents a bargain.
Successful CEF investors--and our Morningstar Discussion Boards are filled with successful CEF investing individuals and advisors--have all, over time, created their own methods for choosing which CEFs to purchase and which to sell. As with any investment method, so much depends on one's own personality. Some investors disparage and detest leverage; others don't. Some investors would never purchase a CEF at any premium; others aren't overly concerned with mild premiums. The important point, in my opinion, is to make sure that when we compare CEF metrics, we are making proper comparisons. In order to do that, CEFs with similar business models must be grouped together. Comparing pork with ball point pens doesn't make sense, and neither does comparing and contrasting an equity-focused CEF against a state-municipal CEF.