Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Investment funds track public policy goals

- Alex Veiga Joe Sweeney Title: Education: Favorite movie: Favorite musician: Favorite Wisconsin restaurant:

From the Republican-led federal tax reform package signed into law last week by President Donald Trump to his predecesso­r’s sweeping overhaul of health care, government policies can often benefit some companies and hurt others.

That dynamic is something investors can work with to identify companies that could make big gains, or to short shares in those that may face turbulence should unfavorabl­e legislatio­n win passage or a federal agency impose new rules.

That’s the idea behind three exchange-traded funds, or ETFs, from EventShare­s that debuted in October. One invests in companies that are likely to benefit from Republican policies, while another favors companies that would thrive under Democratic policies.

A third aims to invest in companies that will see the biggest benefits from the recently enacted tax overhaul. To date, the ETFs have combined assets under management of just under $18 million.

Ben Phillips, chief investment officer of EventShare­s, spoke with the AP about how he manages the ETFs’ holdings and why investors should consider this niche approach rather than sticking with broader ETFs that are not focused on policy and politics. Answers have been edited for length and clarity.

Q: Why create ETFs geared toward companies that play on the potential policy outcomes in Washington?

A: We went back 40-plus years and studied airline regulation in the 1970s and studied that impact, which was regulatory and policy driven. We looked at Glass-Steagall in the ‘90s. We looked at Dodd-Frank and, obviously, Obamacare. It had implicatio­ns for the market and still does today.

The idea was there are these major policy trends that really do drive market returns, especially for specific sectors. And we thought those should be consolidat­ed into funds. The GOP and the DEMS fund.

Q: How do you select the companies for each fund?

A: We picked what we believe the top five policies of each party are over the next zero to five years. The GOP fund has defense, border protection, infrastruc­ture, U.S. energy independen­ce, deregulati­on and tax reform. All of those policy items are driving returns for those stocks. The Democrat ETF’s largest policy bucket is health care expansion, environmen­tally conscious, social good, finance reform and educationa­l access.

That’s really our starting point, trying to start with the policy and then we pick underlying stocks that we think are best suited to fit that policy.

Q: Do your ETFs lend too much weight to the government’s influence on how a company performs?

A: I don’t think so. What’s driven the market’s returns over the past year? It’s been potential deregulati­on, whether it’s health care or financial or energy. It’s been tax reform.

Q: Why create a separate fund that invests in companies that will benefit from tax reform?

A: We think that these major pieces of legislatio­n that impact large chunks of the economy warrant their own fund. Tax reform has implicatio­ns on almost every U.S. company. We are going to launch another tactical fund, the European Union breakup fund.

Q: Why is this approach better than, say, investing in a sector or small-cap ETF to get more exposure to companies likely to benefit most from the corporate tax cut? Or in a sector ETF?

A: We’re picking a concentrat­ed portfolio. All three of our portfolios have 40 stocks or less. They’re actively managed, so we’re able to evolve with the evolving policy landscape. Sector ETFs are passively constructe­d, there’s no real thought that goes into them and they’re not precise vehicles to gain exposure.

And with regard to small-caps. The Russell 2000 is just a much less efficient vehicle to play tax reform. There are 2000 names in it. We’re picking the top 40 beneficiar­ies in the Russell 3000.

Q: Seems like it would be tempting for a Republican or Democrat to put money into the fund that correspond­s with their ideology, purely for ideologica­l or partisan reasons. That’s not the goal here, is it?

A: No. It’s really policy over politics. We don’t want people to use their own personal ideologica­l beliefs to make investment decisions, because that’s just not good investment advice.

Best advice ever received:

Point after:

Extra credit:

Author and speaker

Bachelor of arts, industrial psychology, Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota; master’s in business administra­tion, Notre Dame

Family:

Wife, Tami; four adult children; four grandchild­ren; a yellow Labrador retriever named Murphy

“(Former UCLA basketball coach) John Wooden said, ‘You haven’t lived a perfect day until you’ve done something for another person who could never repay you.’”

A tossup: “Braveheart” and “Hoosiers.”

“Everything from Zac Brown to James Taylor to Garth Brooks.”

“All of Omar Shaikh’s restaurant­s.”

“My parents always wanted a girl and name her Mary. They popped out nine straight boys, and the 10th was a girl. A lesson in persistenc­e! I was the ninth boy. Had eight older brothers — if there was ever an excuse for lots of therapy — being the runt of a large Irish Catholic litter.”

Sweeney’s office space might be the coolest in downtown Milwaukee. He occupies the penthouse on the 28th floor atop the Milwaukee Center, with glass walls that overlook the city in every direction.

 ??  ?? Phillips
Phillips

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States