MXI: Materials Dashboard For May
Summary
- Construction materials have attractive value and quality scores.
- Other subsectors are close to 11-year averages in valuation.
- Packaging has a good quality score.
- iShares Global Materials ETF is a global alternative to Materials Select Sector SPDR® Fund ETF, we analyze and compare them.
- Quantitative Risk & Value members get exclusive access to our real-world portfolio. See all our investments here »
exipreess
This monthly article series shows a dashboard with aggregate industry metrics in materials. It is also a review of sector exchange-traded funds ("ETFs") like Materials Select Sector SPDR® Fund ETF (XLB), iShares U.S. Basic Materials ETF (IYM), and other funds whose largest holdings are used to calculate these metrics.
Shortcut
The next two paragraphs in italics describe the dashboard methodology. They are necessary for new readers to understand the metrics. If you are used to this series or if you are short of time, you can skip them and go to the charts.
Base Metrics
I calculate the median value of five fundamental ratios for each industry: Earnings Yield ("EY"), Sales Yield ("SY"), Free Cash Flow Yield ("FY"), Return on Equity ("ROE"), Gross Margin ("GM"). The reference universe includes large companies in the U.S. stock market. The five base metrics are calculated on trailing 12 months. For all of them, higher is better. EY, SY, and FY are medians of the inverse of Price/Earnings, Price/Sales, and Price/Free Cash Flow. They are better for statistical studies than price-to-something ratios, which are unusable or non-available when the "something" is close to zero or negative (for example, companies with negative earnings). I also look at two momentum metrics for each group: the median monthly return (RetM) and the median annual return (RetY).
I prefer medians to averages because a median splits a set in a good half and a bad half. A capital-weighted average is skewed by extreme values and the largest companies. My metrics are designed for stock-picking rather than index investing.
Value and Quality Scores
I calculate historical baselines for all metrics. They are noted respectively EYh, SYh, FYh, ROEh, GMh, and they are calculated as the averages on a look-back period of 11 years. For example, the value of EYh for packaging in the table below is the 11-year average of the median Earnings Yield in packaging companies.
The Value Score ("VS") is defined as the average difference in % between the three valuation ratios (EY, SY, FY) and their baselines (EYh, SYh, FYh). The same way, the Quality Score ("QS") is the average difference between the two quality ratios (ROE, GM) and their baselines (ROEh, GMh).
The scores are in percentage points. VS may be interpreted as the percentage of undervaluation or overvaluation relative to the baseline (positive is good, negative is bad). This interpretation must be taken with caution: the baseline is an arbitrary reference, not a supposed fair value. The formula assumes that the three valuation metrics are of equal importance.
Current Data
The next table shows the metrics and scores as of last week's closing. Columns stand for all the data named and defined above.
VS | QS | EY | SY | FY | ROE | GM | EYh | SYh | FYh | ROEh | GMh | RetM | RetY | |
Chemicals | -0.17 | -4.67 | 0.0603 | 0.5163 | 0.0096 | 17.53 | 39.62 | 0.0434 | 0.4513 | 0.0208 | 17.98 | 42.53 | -2.28% | -13.21% |
Constr. Materials | 52.80 | 52.54 | 0.0662 | 0.8664 | 0.0608 | 23.50 | 31.50 | 0.0364 | 0.8552 | 0.0347 | 11.92 | 29.16 | 3.29% | 9.55% |
Packaging | -0.96 | 16.01 | 0.0638 | 1.2089 | 0.0191 | 23.04 | 25.65 | 0.0487 | 1.0559 | 0.0370 | 17.79 | 25.01 | -2.48% | -2.31% |
Mining/Metals | -10.72 | 3.15 | 0.0428 | 1.5030 | 0.0100 | 8.79 | 23.71 | 0.0430 | 1.1884 | 0.0239 | 9.43 | 20.95 | -4.82% | -3.07% |
Value and Quality Chart
The next chart plots the Value and Quality Scores by industry (higher is better).
Value and quality in materials (Chart: author; data: Portfolio123)
Evolution Since Last Month
Both scores have significantly deteriorated in mining/metals.
Score variations (Chart: author; data: Portfolio123)
Momentum
The next chart plots median returns by subsector.
Momentum in materials (Chart: author; data: Portfolio123)
Interpretation
The most attractive subsector regarding both value and quality scores is construction materials. Chemicals and packaging are very close to 11-year averages in valuation. The latter is above the historical baseline in quality. Mining/metals is moderately overvalued.
Fast Facts on MXI
The iShares Global Materials ETF has been tracking the S&P Global 1200 Materials Index since 9/12/2006. It has 103 holdings and a 12-month trailing yield of 4.57%. The total expense ratio is 0.40%, whereas XLB charges only 0.10%.
The portfolio is quite concentrated: the top 10 holdings weigh 35.2% of asset value and the top 2 names are over 6%. However, MXI is more diversified than XLB, which has about 65% in the top 10 holdings and 20% in the largest one. The next table shows MXI's top 10 constituents with fundamental ratios.
Ticker* | Name | Weight % | EPS Growth % TTM | P/E TTM | P/E fwd | Yield % |
Linde plc | 7.63 | 15.84 | 40.70 | 26.67 | 1.39 | |
BHP Group Ltd. | 6.29 | 19.47 | 7.47 | 9.97 | 9.04 | |
L'Air Liquide S.A. | 3.88 | 4.15 | 31.66 | 24.37 | 1.80 | |
Glencore plc | 2.76 | 252.07 | 4.05 | 14.44 | 6.48 | |
Rio Tinto plc | 2.75 | -40.58 | 7.96 | 8.08 | 7.95 | |
Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd. | 2.64 | 111.24 | 34.13 | N/A | 2.22 | |
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. | 2.58 | -0.49 | 28.28 | 24.17 | 2.55 | |
The Sherwin-Williams Co. | 2.3 | 18.51 | 28.29 | 26.33 | 1.05 | |
Vale S.A. | 2.24 | -17.82 | 3.89 | 5.01 | 7.96 | |
Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. | 2.15 | -48.10 | 19.90 | 17.78 | 1.26 |
* U.S. ticker for convenience. The fund usually holds shares in primary exchanges. Ratios from Portfolio123.
MXI has underperformed XLB since inception by almost 4 percentage points in annualized return (see next table). It also shows a higher risk measured in maximum drawdown and volatility (standard deviation of monthly returns).
Total Return | Annualized Return | Max Drawdown | Sharpe Ratio | Volatility | |
MXI | 140.18% | 5.40% | -68.44% | 0.3 | 22.94% |
XLB | 338.49% | 9.27% | -55.19% | 0.57 | 15.83% |
Data calculated with Portfolio123
However, both funds are almost tie in the last 12 months:
MXI vs. XLB, last 12 months (Seeking Alpha)
In summary, MXI is a fund for investors seeking diversified and global exposure in basic materials. It currently holds 103 global stocks, including large and mid-caps, whereas XLB invests in 32 large U.S. companies. Nonetheless, past performance is underwhelming. Investors who are concerned by risks related to the concentration of capital-weighted ETFs may prefer the Invesco S&P 500® Equal Weight Materials ETF (RTM).
Dashboard List
I use the first table to calculate value and quality scores. It may also be used in a stock-picking process to check how companies stand among their peers. For example, the EY column tells us that a chemical company with an Earnings Yield above 0.0603 (or price/earnings below 16.58) is in the better half of the industry regarding this metric. A Dashboard List is sent every month to Quantitative Risk & Value subscribers, with the most profitable companies standing in the better half among their peers regarding the three valuation metrics at the same time.
Editor's Note: This article discusses one or more securities that do not trade on a major U.S. exchange. Please be aware of the risks associated with these stocks.
Quantitative Risk & Value (QRV) features data-driven strategies in stocks and closed-end funds outperforming their benchmarks since inception. Get started with a two-week free trial now.
This article was written by
Step up your investing experience: try Quantitative Risk & Value for free now (limited offer).
I am an individual investor and an IT professional, not a finance professional. My writings are data analysis and opinions, not investment advice. They may contain inaccurate information, despite all the effort I put in them. Readers are responsible for all consequences of using information included in my work, and are encouraged to do their own research from various sources.
Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have no stock, option or similar derivative position in any of the companies mentioned, and no plans to initiate any such positions within the next 72 hours. 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.
Seeking Alpha's Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.