Can an exchange-traded fund get too big for its index? That's the question investors in one popular gold miner ETF are grappling with after rapid asset growth pushed it to significantly deviate from its underlying index.
The ETF in question is the VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF (GDXJ), which tracks the MVIS Global Junior Gold Miners Index. Since early 2016, assets in the fund ballooned from a little more than $1 billion to $5.4 billion currently. Some of that was due to rising share prices―GDXJ nearly doubled from $19.80 at the start of 2016 to $36.71 today, an 85% gain, thanks to the rebound in gold.
But a lot of it had to do with the enormous amount of new money that came into the fund. Since Jan. 1, 2016, inflows into the ETF have totaled $3.3 billion. For almost any ETF, that's a big amount, but especially for one that targets a relatively niche area like junior gold miners.
Com’e’ possibile che un ETF si metta a deviare cosi’ tanto dall’indice sottostante? E’ il caso del GDXJ, che e’ un basket di diversi piccoli miners in oro (ma anche argento in realta'). A partire del 2016 questo ETF e’ passato dal raccogliere 1 mld di dollari a raccoglierne 5,4 (ad una settimana fa circa), col prezzo che e’ passato da meno di 20 a 36-37 dollari oggi. In poco piu’ di un anno sono confluiti nell\ETF piu’ di 3 miliardi di dollari, una grossa quantita’ .. specialmente per un ETF che ha come obiettivo un mercato piccolo e di nicchia come i junior miners, le piccole compagnie minerarie in oro.
The ETF has gotten so big that it now owns giant stakes in its underlying holdings, three-quarters of which are Canadian companies. According to an analysis by Scotiabank, there are 10 Canadian companies that the ETF owns where its ownership percentage is more than 18%.
For six of those companies, the percentage would be even greater, but presumably, the fund doesn't want to exceed the 20% level, which, under Canadian rules, would force the ETF "to automatically extend a takeover offer to all remaining shareholders at the same terms," according to a Scotiabank report.
The ETF has also struggled to abide by U.S. IRS diversification requirements. "GDXJ has intermittently been in jeopardy of losing its preferential tax treatment (as a regulated investment company) since last September because its portfolio often doesn’t comply with the diversification requirements of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code," noted Scotiabank.
L’ETF e’ diventato ormai cosi’ grande che ha accumulato quote gigantesche dei relativi piccoli miners, secondo alcuni studi ha ormai piu’ del 18% di alcune di queste compagnie, la maggior parte, poi, canadesi (moltissime compagnie minerarie in preziosi hanno sede a Vancouver o comunque in Canada)... per 6 miners si parla addirittura di quasi un 20% delle azioni esistenti, quota che, per le leggi canadesi, obbligherebbe il possessore a fare una specie di OPA per tutto il resto della compagnia (!!!)
Non bastasse il GDXJ e’ ai limiti anche per leggi americane sulle tasse (?!) perche’ non abbastanza diversificato.
In an attempt to try to ameliorate the concentration issues it’s facing, the ETF now has five holdings that aren't index constituents, representing 25% of GDXJ's portfolio, according to BMO Capital Markets. One of those holdings is the VanEck Vectors Gold Miners ETF (GDX), another product from the same issuer, which focuses on much larger gold companies.
Chris Kwan, mining specialist at BMO, believes GDXJ has simply gotten too big for its benchmark now that it is a $5 billion ETF "attempting to invest in a ~$30B gold universe."
In Kwan's view, there are three ways forward for the ETF. It could continue with the status quo, creating uncertain and volatile quarterly rebalances; it could sell its nonindex gold stocks and increase its position in GDX; or it could expand the allowable market-cap size of the ETF.
Per "diversificare” allora i gestori del fondo si sono messi a comprare altra roba (!), fra cui il fratello maggiore, il GDX, stessa roba ma con un basket di grosse compagnie minerarie, i big. Ma non solo, ora nel GDXJ sono finite pare anche altre compagnie.
Uno specialista fa notare che i 5 e piu’ miliardi raccolti dal GDXJ sono un'esagerazione in un mercato che vale grossomodo, complessivamente, un 30 mld. Ha di fronte diverse strade: far finta di niente e continuare cosi’, vendere le azioni non dell’indice ed aumentare la posizione in GDX, o aumentare il market cap permesso dell’ETF
In a way, the ETF has already de facto expanded the average size of its holdings. The nonindex names that it owns have the biggest weightings in the fund. That includes GDX, which has a weighted average market cap of $9.3 billion―well beyond small-cap, junior miner territory.
Perhaps the easiest fix for VanEck, which also develops the underlying index for GDXJ, is to expand what it considers to be the junior gold miner universe, something the issuer did in 2014 when faced with a similar situation. Why hasn't this happened already? That may be because the portfolio managers are holding out hope that, at some point, they can go back to employing a full replication strategy.
E perche’ non aumentare invece il numero di piccoli miners dell’indice, cosa che gia’ hanno fatto nel 2014 quando si sono trovati in una situazione analoga? Forse invece non si sta facendo niente perche' il management spera che la “bolla” si risistemi da sola
Taylor Dart intanto ha prodotto questo nuovo post oggi, in cui parla della 200 days moving average superata, che se si riesce a stare sopra quota 1260 sino a fine mese ci sono buone possibilita’ che si realizzi una golden cross nell’oro (la media mobile a 50 gg che supera quella a 200 gg, molto bullish), di come se si chiude la settimana sopra 1265 la cosa potrebbe avere implicazioni molto rialziste per il 2017, di come si sentira’ bullish sino a che l’oro non dovesse scendere sotto quota 1239 ...
(...) The above daily chart of gold shows that not only have we reclaimed the 200-day moving average, we've also broken out of the 2016 downtrend, and are sitting above a rising 50-day moving average. As long as the metal is able to base above $1,260/oz for the rest of the month, there's a very good chance we can get a golden cross (50-day moving average through the 200-day moving average) by early May. This would be another positive development for the bull camp, and would instill more confidence in the validity of this breakout.
Finally moving to a weekly chart, we can see that thus far gold is also outside of its weekly downtrend line from the 2016 highs. A close above $1,265/oz this week would have very bullish implications and would set up us for a very strong 2017. I am monitoring the weekly close for this reason, but feel very good about the action thus far this week.
(...) I am remaining long all of my miners and have no intention of selling them at this juncture. My goal is to position myself for the big swings, so I have no interest in trying to guess where the next 2-3% move in gold is. The daily and weekly trend is trending up, and I expect the next 5-10% move to be higher. Unless gold closes back below $1,239/oz support, the path of least resistance remains up.
.. ma nei sempre interessantissimi commenti a diverse domande sul GDXJ (e sul JNUG!) risponde:
The key now is getting back above the 200-day moving average on GDX at $24.75
la chiave dei 200 dma e’ ora a 24,75 (e oggi rosicava proprio quella quota il GDX)
Some leaders but also many lower quality names, and lots of silver stocks. I do not like the GDXJ make-up which is why I buy individual juniors and highlight them in articles
Gli fa skifo com’e costruito il GDXJ, un sacco di perdenti e anche molti miners in argento (gli piace B2Gold e Pretius Resources, il resto bllh).
Perche’ il GDXJ sta facendo cosi’ skifo?
I'm not sure. Possible due to some re-balancing, possible due to low quality names as Ive talked about.
GPL down 5% (a silver stock in the GDXJ)
GSS a stock with ridiculous cash costs off 5%
GSV a past leader turned to laggard down 5%
KLDX another silver stock down 5%
GORO another stock I'm not a fan of that pays dividends but can barely report any earnings down nearly 5%
The index is garbage and I don't understand the ridiculous make-up of it. They have no leading juniors like Osisko, Marathon etc that are up 100%+ this year and would be dragging the index up or at least putting a bid under it. There's a reason I don't touch the GDXJ other than for small leveraged bets in JNUG. I much prefer the GDX, but if anything, the individual miners.
It's worth looking at the make-up of this index as I stated yesterday. Low quality gold names, a few leaders, and a bunch of silver stocks. I could manage a better gold fund blind.
Ci sono un sacco di piccoli miners perdenti (li chiama dogs, cani) e mancano alcuni veri vincenti (come Osisko e Marathon, che lui invece ha in portafoglio, singolarmente scelti e comprati) .. e dice che avrebbe messo su meglio un ETF simile lui ad occhi chiusi. :D
Has GDXJ not been lagging the GDX for a large portion of this move?
This isn't possibly due to lower quality names that are all below their 200-day moving average, compared to the GDX that has several stocks that are breaking out and actually leading gold?
Most of the GDX components are up today, and many of them if you look at them are above their 50-day and 200-day moving averages.
Several of the GDXJ holdings are below their 200-day moving average which is the line in sand for many money managers and trend followers to allocate $ to them. Many of them are also below their 50-day moving averages, and several of them are down today.
Its possible it's a re-balance, it's possible it has something to do with the article about the GDXJ getting "too big". But my explanation also lies in the fact that it's a very poorly run index, with lots of dogs, especially when compared with the GDX.
I wouldn't own more than 5 stocks in the GDXJ currently, and detest many of them fundamentally, other than a few bright spots like PVG, and BTG.
I would own several stocks in the GDX as they're well run, not dogs, and are actually breaking out.
Perche' GDXJ (e quindi anche JNUG, che sulle variazioni del GDXJ sarebbe basato) fanno skifo? Molti dei loro miners nel loro basket non hanno superato le medie mobili a 200 gg e addirittura alcuni neanche quelle a 50 giorni. Un sacco di fondi e altro guardano sta roba e se non si superano queste medie stanno alla larga.