CUT vs. WOOD: Timber ETFs Square Off [View article]
The problem with CUT & WOOD is that they don't track timber, per say, but timber and paper companies, as the index states. A .76 correlation to MCAFE and a .69 to (I assume, based on your statistics) the S&P or equivalent - even over 15 years - is not a low correlation value. In fact, both of these ETFs have traded in near lockstep over most major measurement periods since their inception.
I certainly do not disagree with the premise of owning timber, and our neutral fund regularly invests in highly non-correlated assets. But raw land, for those inclined, gives folks an (arguably) better non-correlated appreciation than these two, largely mainstream, equity trackers. Even Plum Creek (PCL) - a favorite of fellow portfolio builder R. Nusbaum - exhibited a .91 correlation to the S&P over the last year, with WOOD at .99 and CUT at .96.
-
The problem with CUT & WOOD is that they don't track timber, per say, but timber and paper companies, as the index states. A .76 correlation to MCAFE and a .69 to (I assume, based on your statistics) the S&P or equivalent - even over 15 years - is not a low correlation value. In fact, both of these ETFs have traded in near lockstep over most major measurement periods since their inception.
Jul 01 11:27 am
|Rating:
+7
0
All Comments by Geoffrey Lordi »CUT vs. WOOD: Timber ETFs Square Off [View article]
I certainly do not disagree with the premise of owning timber, and our neutral fund regularly invests in highly non-correlated assets. But raw land, for those inclined, gives folks an (arguably) better non-correlated appreciation than these two, largely mainstream, equity trackers. Even Plum Creek (PCL) - a favorite of fellow portfolio builder R. Nusbaum - exhibited a .91 correlation to the S&P over the last year, with WOOD at .99 and CUT at .96.