|Day Low/High||41.43 / 43.16|
|52 Wk Low/High||41.12 / 87.38|
Both, actually. But the one who came out way ahead might surprise you.
With a month to go for these portfolios, the Active version is outperforming the Passive one, though both are crushing their Russell kindred.
Six of the eight active names are in positive territory.
Since the last update, both portfolios are up about 9%, keeping the performance gap at about 1700 bps.
While Fitbit is still the best performer, other names are beginning to carry their weight.
While this experiment is still inconclusive, it's still nice to see both groups of triple nets outperforming.
The two portfolios, one active and the other passive, have sagged with the broader market but still are outperforming a pair of Russell value indices.
Can an active approach outperform a passive approach in small, deeper value names?
These companies are trading between 2x and 3x net current asset value, and with a market cap in excess of $100 million.
One thing is certain: Triple-nets are not a common investment hunting ground, but some may be the recipe for the next ETF.
Luxury wine producer Crimson Wine Group is among them, as are a handful of manufacturers.
Adding 'triple-nets' this time around with three key screening criteria.