Recognizing Leverage In The CEF-PGF Comparison 2 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
While I accept this criticism as a matter of principle - it is unfair to compare leveraged and unleveraged funds, the latter fighting with one proverbial hand tied behind their backs - I don't think this is a huge factor in this case. The recent Bill Gross comment shows that leverage (especially as little as 35%) doesn't get you that much extra juice these days.
Specifically, The BPP uses its own preferred shares for leverage, on which it pays just over 4.5% (according to their last report). Assuming they take that and invest it in something that yields even as much as 8% (surely an over-estimate), that would still only account for about 1.1% of yield. Subtracting that, BPP - which trades at a premium and has a larger fee, mind you - still beats PGF by a few dozen basis points.
One might also argue that the extra risk taken by the CEF's in leveraging is comparable to the extra risk taken by PGF in concentrating on a limited number of issues.
Thanks to JonD for pointing out this fundamental flaw in my previous analysis. Now we have a more complete picture.
Related Articles
|


























This article has 2 comments:
it looks like BPP might have lower credit quality and the majority of its holdings are categorized as "other" whereas PGF is all financials (both according to ETFConnect.com).
I own Nuveen's JPS, yielding 7.5% today, nearly the same as BPP's 7.6%, but at only a 1.28% premium vs. BPP's 7.13%. Also, relative to BPP, JPS is more diversified (by industry), has slightly lower leverage (31.44% vs. 33.80%) and a lower fee structure (.96% vs. 1.26%). all according to ETFConnect.com. no data on JPS's credit quality.
i own a couple of Nuveen CEFs - (JPS and JRO) --- generally speaking, I think they are cheaper than like product from BlackRock - don't know why. perhaps b/c of the greater publicity from the Merill Lynch merger.
and I prefer them to PGF, too, for reasons you already highlighted.