Performance & Risk:
ETF / ETP Details
GLOBAL X NASDAQ 100 COVERED CALL ETF
22.4834090.09 (0.40%)as of 4:00:00pm ET 10/15/2021 Quotes delayed at least 15 min. Log in for real time quote.
|1 Year Average||0.12%|
|Returns||Volatility (vs. Market Benchmark)|
|Average||NAV Return||Market Return||Benchmark Index |
(CBOE S&P 500 BuyWrite BXM)
AS OF --
|Market Benchmark |
(S&P 500 TR USD)
AS OF 09/30/2021
Gross Expense Ratio: 0.66%
Tax-adjusted returns and tax cost ratio are estimates of the impact taxes have had on a fund. Assumes the highest tax rate in calculating and follow the SEC guidelines for calculating returns before sale of shares. Click here to learn more.
Exchange traded products (ETPs) are subject to market volatility and the risks of their underlying securities which may include the risks associated with investing in smaller companies, foreign securities, commodities and fixed income investments. Foreign securities are subject to interest-rate, currency-exchange-rate, economic, and political risks, all of which are magnified in emerging markets. ETPs that target a small universe of securities, such as a specific region or market sector are generally subject to greater market volatility as well as the specific risks associated with that sector, region or other focus. ETPs which use derivatives, leverage, or complex investment strategies are subject to additional risks. The return of an index ETP is usually different from that of the index it tracks because of fees, expenses and tracking error. An ETP may trade at a premium or discount to its Net Asset Value (NAV) (or Indicative Value in the case of ETNs). Each ETP has a unique risk profile which is detailed in its prospectus, offering circular or similar material, which should be considered carefully when making investment decisions.
Performance data shown represents past performance and is no guarantee of future results. Investment return and principal value will fluctuate, so you may have a gain or loss when shares are sold. Current performance may be higher or lower than that quoted.
QYLD – Avoid This ETF as a Long-Term Investment (A Review)
QYLD has been gaining popularity among income investors as a bullish-yet-defensive play on the NASDAQ 100. Here we’ll review it and look at why it’s probably not a great choice for a long-term buy-and-hold portfolio.
Disclosure: Some of the links on this page are referral links. At no additional cost to you, if you choose to make a purchase or sign up for a service after clicking through those links, I may receive a small commission. This allows me to continue producing high-quality, ad-free content on this site and pays for the occasional cup of coffee. I have first-hand experience with every product or service I recommend, and I recommend them because I genuinely believe they are useful, not because of the commission I get if you decide to purchase through my links. Read more here.
Introduction – What Is QYLD and How Does It Work?
QYLD is an ETF from Global X that holds the NASDAQ 100 index and also sells covered calls on it to generate income. To my knowledge, it is the largest covered call strategy fund with over $3 billion in assets.
As a brief refresher, covered call writers own the underlying and collect a premium on the option, and the buyer of the call option has the right to buy the underlying at the strike price at or before expiration.For example, if I own a fund like QQQ for the NASDAQ 100 and I think it’s going to be relatively flat for the next 30 days or so, I might sell a call option on it, for which I receive cash immediately (called the premium). The buyer of that call option is hoping QQQ goes up. As the seller, I’m hoping it stays flat. Call options are usually sold to generate income in a flat or mild bear market.
This is exactly what QYLD does. The fund holds stocks in the NASDAQ 100 and writes 1-month at-the-money calls on them. It’s pretty simple; nothing proprietary going on. QYLD charges a fairly hefty 0.60% for this strategy. QYLD is popular because this allows the fund to have a distribution yield upwards of 10% that pays monthly, making it attractive to income investors.
Is QYLD a Good Investment? Probably Not.
While QYLD uses the NASDAQ 100, Global X also offers RYLD for the Russell 2000 (U.S. small- and mid-caps) and XYLD for the S&P 500 (U.S. large caps). All 3 funds work the same way.
These funds seem to be popular among income investors and FIRE folks, but I have yet to see a compelling reason for investors’ fascination with these funds. I have to assume most simply aren’t looking past the extremely high yield and perhaps don’t know what they’re buying. There’s even an entire community on Reddit dedicated to this thing.
Inexperienced investors seem to have this idea that the “income” and dividends from these expensive funds are free money, or that selling shares of a low-cost index fund like VTI – or even QQQ in this case – to realize gains of an equal amount is somehow inferior to receiving a dividend. Neither of these things is true. This irrational preference of dividends as income is just a well-documented – and admittedly understandable – mental accounting fallacy. Again, I suspect investors unfortunately aren’t looking too far past the high yield carrot of these funds before buying in.
First, specific to QYLD, the NASDAQ 100 is poorly diversified and is basically a tech index at this point. It is purely large cap growth stocks. Investors have been chasing recent performance by flocking to NASDAQ 100 funds like QQQ and QQQM simply because the index has beaten the market over the past decade, thanks largely to Big Tech.
But the market itself is already over 1/4 tech, and large cap growth stocks are looking extremely expensive relative to history (and relative to Value). Moreover, the valuation spread between Value and Growth is as large as it’s ever been. Because of all this, we’ve got concentration risk and lower future expected returns for large cap growth stocks. Only time will tell, but now may actually be the worst time to buy Growth and the best time to buy Value. Large value spreads have historically preceded its marked outperformance. Alas, all crystal balls are cloudy, but I’d argue that’s precisely a good reason not to be concentrated in the NASDAQ 100 Index.
Secondly, dividends/distributions aren’t free money. Because part of QYLD’s assets come from its option selling, its total return is muted, making novice investors feel like it’s safe. But this is the wrong way to think about it. Removing its distributions, QYLD’s capital appreciation component is virtually flat on average and has actually been negative since inception:
QYLD vs. QQQ
At this point, since we’re talking about dividends and price appreciation, let’s pause the discussion for a second to look at QYLD vs. QQQ in terms of sheer performance. Recall that QQQ is just the plain ol’ fund that tracks the NASDAQ 100 Index.
The backtest below will hopefully be eye-opening. Even with QYLD’s dividends reinvested, the underlying QQQ has delivered a greater risk-adjusted (and general) return since QYLD’s inception in late 2013:
Some quick important takeaways:
- QQQ still delivered a significantly greater risk-adjusted return (Sharpe; ratio of return to volatility) even though it was about 50% more volatile than QYLD. Covered call strategists boast about their greater Sharpe ratios, but the argument doesn’t even hold water here against the underlying QQQ. The Sortino ratio arguably illustrates this even better, as it only looks at downside risk. QQQ’s Sortino ratio was over twice that of QYLD.
- More importantly, notice the nearly identical max drawdowns. Simply put, QYLD does not protect the downside. I’ll explain this in a second. QQQ had a Calmar ratio (ratio of return to max drawdown) of over 3x that of QYLD as well.
- Similarly, QYLD doesn’t get to fully participate in the upside. Notice how the “best year” return for QQQ was more than double that of QYLD. I’ll explain this later, too.
I usually say backtests don’t mean much (i.e. they have little to no bearing on the future), but out of all the ones I’ve posted on this website, this one is arguably the most telling, the most straightforward, and the most useful for one’s future strategy. If it doesn’t illustrate why this fund is pretty awful, I don’t know what will. What’s more, all this poor performance of QYLD comes at 4x the price of its underlying index.
I’ll resume the discussion and continue explaining the details in the following section.
Continuing the Discussion – More Reasons QYLD Stinks
I can easily think of 2 other portfolios off the top of my head that are safer, cheaper, more diversified, more tax-efficient, and that have had much higher general and risk-adjusted returns, lower volatility, lower excess kurtosis, and smaller drawdowns than QYLD. If one wants a high dividend yield to use as income, I’d think you could think of combinations of dividend funds, high yield corporate bond funds, etc. that would be objectively superior to QYLD in almost every way, such as Portfolio 3 in the backtest I linked. You’d likely even come out ahead after taxes with high-div REITs considering QYLD’s high fee. Moreover, its return has even severely lagged income-focused CEF’s. I designed a dividend portfolio for income investors here that may appeal to you.
The situation for QYLD is exacerbated in a taxable environment because you’re taxed on every distribution, regardless of whether or not you reinvest it. I’m a fan of simply selling shares as needed for any “income” needed, which should be mathematically preferable anyway if you don’t actually need that income on a monthly basis, as it allows you to leave more money in the market longer.
Thirdly, covered calls cap the upside at the strike price. They’re not a free lunch. If the underlying rallies, you don’t get to fully participate. Aren’t we investing in the market – in any form – because we expect it to go up more than it goes down? Even if income is the goal, why would we want to purposefully stifle the portfolio’s growth? This concept is illustrated in the backtest above by the “best year” returns.
In total fairness to QYLD, a covered call fund would be nice in a totally flat market, as you’d just float along collecting the premium from writing call options when the underlying isn’t doing anything. Granted, the premium would be lower, but you’d be better off than if you were only holding the underlying index that was just moseying along decaying. But we don’t see that market environment very often (and we wouldn’t expect to), and for the rest of the time leading up to and following that flat period, you’d be underperforming. This type of flat market is even less likely with the Nasdaq-100, which is actually good in terms of the premium received.
Lastly and arguably most importantly, covered calls don’t protect the downside. This is probably the one I see QYLD proponents erroneously trying to push most often. In fairness, they simply may not understand how covered calls work. Don’t succumb to mental accounting bias; the premium received doesn’t mean much if the market crashes. If the underlying drops, so does the fund, along with its distribution yield. Again, you don’t have to take my word for it; just look at the clear illustration in the backtest above of the nearly identical drawdowns. Another covered call fund, NUSI, does offer downside protection by buying a protective put option.
I see comments all the time about QYLD being “safe” or that it offers “downside protection.” Neither of these things is true. Global X themselves even claim in the fund literature that “covered call strategies can play a useful role in a portfolio during downturns,” but they sort of gloss over the fact that the drawdowns are typically lower by the precise amount of the option premium received; that cash doesn’t really offer any “protection.” Returns from covered call funds like this are asymmetrical, and we would expect them to be – severely capped upside, but nearly the same downside as the underlying index. In statistical terms, this is called negative skewness of returns, and investors typically try to avoid it.
So we’re purposefully limiting the upside potential while leaving unlimited downside risk, all in the name of “income.” Intuitively, this should at least strike you as suboptimal.
I personally don’t think QYLD’s 12% yield is sustainable anyway. So far the fund hasn’t had to endure a major crash like 2008 or 2000, or arguably worse, a protracted bear market. Market conditions (a raging bull market for the most part, particularly for Big Tech) have been ideal for these funds in their relatively short lifespans thus far.
In terms of downside protection, there’s an objectively better, simpler, cheaper, more tax-efficient solution that existed long before these funds came about: decrease stocks and add bonds. And for those who are holding QYLD because they think bonds suck, consider checking out my brief rant on why bonds are still useful in basically any environment. We’d also want to be more diversified across assets and geographies in general. In short, as the backtest above showed, covered calls are not an efficient way to lower the volatility and drawdowns of a portfolio.
And again, all these undesirable characteristics come at 4x the price of the underlying index.
Suppose you still hate bonds. You can use T-bills, which are literally called the “risk-free asset” and are considered a cash equivalent. They also happen to be a decent inflation hedge because they can be rolled quickly. Let’s take the simplest example of a naively-weighted 50% NASDAQ-100 and 50% cash (T-bills) to once again show how one can easily beat QYLD in a simpler, cheaper, more tax-efficient manner:
Notice how we’ve once again beaten QYLD on every single metric – higher return, lower volatility, more upside captured (best year), lower volatility, much smaller drawdown, and much higher risk-adjusted return.
I’ve created that pie for M1 Finance here if you’re interested. I wrote a comprehensive review of M1 and why it’s great for income investors here.
The only appropriate scenario I can see for buying these types of funds is if the investor, for some reason, consciously wants to implement a rolling covered call strategy without handling the logistics of writing the options themselves, in order to generate regular income (from the option writing) that they need every month. Let me put this very simply and straightforwardly. If you do not need that regular income every single month to pay for your expenses, there is no reason for you to buy funds like these. More generally, I’d even say if you are reinvesting its dividends, there is no reason for you to buy funds like these.
But if income is the concern, I’d say just go with CEF’s, or again, a combination of dividend stocks and high-yield bonds. “Income” is overrated anyway. I’d be more likely to go with something like SWAN and just set up an automatic monthly transfer from the brokerage account that sells shares for me; there’s my “income.” In the interest of full disclosure, I’m not a dividend investor anyway, and I’d rather just sell shares as needed, so these types of yield-focused strategies don’t appeal to me regardless. I’d rather create my own dividend when I want to. But after looking at the objective facts, I still can’t understand why anyone would buy these funds.
Again, we can construct a demonstrably superior strategy with even the simplest, naive mix of 50% NASDAQ-100 and 50% T-bills.I’ve created that pie for M1 Finance here if you’re interested. I wrote a comprehensive review of M1 and why it’s great for income investors here.
Ironically, if I were forced to use these funds, I’d certainly go with the greater diversification of XYLD with a dash of RYLD to get exposure to the entire U.S. market instead of the more popular QYLD that narrows in on the NASDAQ 100. Investors have gravitated toward the latter due to recency bias and performance chasing. This is both irrational and hypocritical, as they’re simultaneously citing the QYLD’s “safety” and “protection.” One will inarguably get comparatively more of those things with the broader index that XYLD uses (the S&P 500). Some are buying QYLD on margin, which doesn’t make much sense to me. Others are even using QYLD as a savings account “replacement” and are reinvesting the dividends, which is nonsensical.
There’s no free lunch outside of diversification. If you are reducing risk with expensive option hedging strategies, you are by definition also accepting lower expected returns. But as we’ve seen, QYLD doesn’t even do a good job of that. Again, covered calls are simply not an efficient way to de-risk a portfolio.
Do you own any of these income-focused option strategy ETFs like QYLD, RYLD, XYLD, JEPI, HNDL, NUSI, DIVO, etc.? Let me know in the comments.
Interested in more Lazy Portfolios? See the full list here.
Disclaimer: While I love diving into investing-related data and playing around with backtests, I am in no way a certified expert. I have no formal financial education. I am not a financial advisor, portfolio manager, or accountant. This is not financial advice, investing advice, or tax advice. The information on this website is for informational and recreational purposes only. Investment products discussed (ETFs, mutual funds, etc.) are for illustrative purposes only. It is not a recommendation to buy, sell, or otherwise transact in any of the products mentioned. Do your own due diligence. Past performance does not guarantee future returns. Read my lengthier disclaimer here.
Data source identification
As your agreement for the receipt and use of market data provides, the securities markets (1) reserve all rights to the market data that they make available; (2) do not guarantee that data; and (3) shall not be liable for any loss due either to their negligence or to any cause beyond their reasonable control.
Performance data quoted represents past performance and does not indicate future results. Investment returns will fluctuate and are subject to market volatility, so that an investor's shares, when redeemed or sold, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Unlike mutual funds, shares of ETFs are not individually redeemable directly with the ETF. Shares are bought and sold at market price, which may be higher or lower than the net asset value (NAV). Current performance may be lower or higher. See the Performance tab for updated monthly returns.
Investors should consider carefully information contained in the prospectus or, if available, the summary prospectus, including investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. You can request a prospectus by calling 800-435-4000. Please read the prospectus carefully before investing.
Investment returns will fluctuate and are subject to market volatility, so that an investor's shares, when redeemed or sold, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Unlike mutual funds, shares of ETFs are not individually redeemable directly with the ETF. Shares are bought and sold at market price, which may be higher or lower than the net asset value (NAV).
ETFs at Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. ("Schwab") can be traded without a commission on buy and sell transactions made online in a Schwab account. Schwab does not receive payment to promote any particular ETF to its customers. Schwab's affiliate Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. ("CSIM") serves as investment advisor to the Schwab ETFs™, which compensate CSIM out of the applicable operating expense ratios. The amount of the fees is disclosed in the prospectus of each ETF.
Conditions Apply: Trades in ETFs are available without commissions when placed online in a Schwab account. Trade orders placed through a broker will receive the negotiated broker-assisted rate. An exchange processing fee applies to sell transactions. All ETFs are subject to management fees and expenses. Please see pricing guide for additional information.
The Morningstar Rating for funds, or "star rating", is calculated for managed products (including mutual funds, variable annuity and variable life subaccounts, exchange-traded funds, closed-end funds, and separate accounts) with at least a three-year history. Exchange-traded funds and open-ended mutual funds are considered a single population for comparative purposes. It is calculated based on a Morningstar Risk-Adjusted Return measure that accounts for variation in a managed product's monthly excess performance, placing more emphasis on downward variations and rewarding consistent performance. The top 10% of products in each product category receive 5 stars, the next 22.5% receive 4 stars, the next 35% receive 3 stars, the next 22.5% receive 2 stars, and the bottom 10% receive 1 star. The Overall Morningstar Rating for a managed product is derived from a weighted average of the performance figures associated with its three-, five-, and 10-year (if applicable) Morningstar Rating metrics. The weights are: 100% three year rating for 36-59 months of total returns, 60% five-year rating/40% three-year rating for 60-119 months of total returns, and 50% 10-year rating/30% five-year rating/20% three-year rating for 120 or more months of total returns. While the 10-year overall star rating formula seems to give the most weight to the 10-year period, the most recent three-year period actually has the greatest impact because it is included in all three rating periods. Morningstar Ratings do not take into account sales loads that may apply to certain third party funds. The Overall Morningstar Ratings are derived from a weighted average of the risk adjusted performance figures associated with a Fund's 3-, 5-, and 10-year (if applicable) Morningstar Rating metrics.
The Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) was developed by and is the exclusive property of Morgan Stanley Capital International Inc. and S&P Global. GICS is a service mark of MSCI and S&P Global and has been licensed for use by Schwab.
The news sources used on Schwab.com come from independent third parties. Schwab is not affiliated with any of the news content providers. Schwab is not responsible for the content, and does not write or control which particular article appears on its website.
Charles Schwab Investment Advisory, Inc. ("CSIA") is an affiliate of Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. ("Schwab"). Schwab ETFs are distributed by SEI Investments Distribution Co. (SIDCO). SIDCO is not affiliated with The Charles Schwab Corporation or any of its affiliates.
(0811-4794, 0813-5488, 1016-N2DC, 1017-7KFC, 1019-95HX)
In the morning it always happens that way. - Styopa tried to get away. I remember what you did in the toilet in the morning. Master, I'll help you. With these words, Vasilisa pulled down her pants and panties from the young man.
They chased each other. Yeah. I'll go. I'm in seventh heaven with happiness. I've never felt so good.QYLD vs XYLD vs RYLD: Which Covered Call High-Yield ETF is Best?
The hands went up, as if stretching like a cat, and then slowly dropped to the hips, returned to the chest and squeezed them. I immediately felt how the nipples tensed and gave themselves to light pleasant painful excitement. Several movements of her hips, turned her back, shook her hips again, and during this time she unbuttoned her blouse and threw it aside.
T You looked at me so eagerly that you wanted to throw everything off instantly.
- Citrix quickbooks
- Ancient wiccan symbols
- Mongodb getmore
- Rexburg dry cleaners
- San antonio uthscsa
- Ua bands
- Suncast garden fencing
- N1 grammar
- Cargurus hammond la
She is clearly in a great mood, like a woman who has begun to live her life. It's time to confess everything, "she began. - Before our visit to the agency, I met with them and agreed on everything. In fact, they did not test me, but you. I was then taken to psychologists for show, and all the hidden dreams embedded in the plots were not mine, but yours.