• Print
  • Default text size A
  • Larger text size A
  • Largest text size A

Return of capital part II

  • Morningstar Morningstar
  • Closed-End Funds
  • Facebook.
  • Twitter.
  • LinkedIn.
  • Google Plus
Please enter a valid e-mail address
Please enter a valid e-mail address
Important legal information about the e-mail you will be sending. By using this service, you agree to input your real e-mail address and only send it to people you know. It is a violation of law in some jurisdictions to falsely identify yourself in an e-mail. All information you provide will be used by Fidelity solely for the purpose of sending the e-mail on your behalf.The subject line of the e-mail you send will be "Fidelity.com: "

Your e-mail has been sent.

In the Return of Capital Part I article (See related Lessons), we explained why return of capital occurs, and briefly outlined the different types of return of capital (RoC). In Part II, we'll delve further into pass-through and constructive return of capital.

Pass-through return of capital

This type of return of capital is neither good nor bad. It arises from accounting conventions, primarily. CEFs that invest in master limited partnerships (MLPs) are the primary CEF distributors of pass-through RoC. Despite the pass-through RoC from MLP CEFs, the CEF structure provides beneficial tax implications compared to investing directly in an MLP. Because it is an accounting convention, we view pass-through RoC as "good" RoC.

Constructive return of capital

This arises from unrealized capital gains. A fund's total return is more important than its distribution. We do not like to see portfolio managers have to sell securities that are rising in value, simply to meet a distribution.

For example, let's say a CEF is 95% invested in one security, with the other 5% sitting in cash. That security was purchased at $100, is now worth $110, and the portfolio manager believes it is worth $120. The manager could sell some of the security to pay the distribution, which would then be attributed to a capital gain, in the distribution estimate. Or the fund could meet its distribution commitment from the 5% of cash it has, but the distribution would be attributed to return of capital.

Which would you rather have happen?

We would prefer to see the portfolio manager stick to the investment strategy, allow the security scenario to play out, and have the fund make a return of capital distribution. By year's end, it is possible that the capital gain will have been realized at $120, and the actual (not the estimated) source of the distribution would then be a realized capital gain.

How can you tell if a return of capital was constructive? A fund's net asset value is composed of the following:

  • Cash on hand 
  • The portfolio securities' cost basis 
  • Subsequent investment income 
  • Subsequent realized capital gains/losses 
  • Subsequent unrealized capital gains/losses

If a CEF has estimated that a distribution came fully or partially from return of capital, then the sources must be either:

  • Cash on hand 
  • Subsequent unrealized capital gains/losses

Furthermore, every distribution--regardless of its source--is deducted from the NAV. So, if a CEF's NAV plus its distribution increases over a period, then any distribution attributed to return of capital is actually a constructive use of return of capital.

An example:

  • NAV at beginning of period = $10.00 
  • Distribution during period (100% estimated to be return of capital)= $1.00 
  • NAV at end of period = $10.00

In this case, the fund has returned $1.00 per share out of unrealized capital gains. It has had a NAV return of 0% and a distribution rate of 10%, combining for a total return of 10%. This was constructive return of capital, and any NAV greater than the beginning NAV would also indicate a constructive use. If a CEF has a total return greater than or equal to its distribution rate, and any portion of the distribution came from return of capital, then that was constructive return of capital and is not a red flag.

Learn how to access distribution information in the Morningstar Research Report available on Fidelity.com.
  • Facebook.
  • Twitter.
  • LinkedIn.
  • Google Plus
Please enter a valid e-mail address
Please enter a valid e-mail address
Important legal information about the e-mail you will be sending. By using this service, you agree to input your real e-mail address and only send it to people you know. It is a violation of law in some jurisdictions to falsely identify yourself in an e-mail. All information you provide will be used by Fidelity solely for the purpose of sending the e-mail on your behalf.The subject line of the e-mail you send will be "Fidelity.com: "

Your e-mail has been sent.
©2012 Morningstar, Inc. All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein: (1) is proprietary to Morningstar and/or its content providers; (2) may not be copied or distributed; and (3) is not warranted to be accurate, complete or timely. Neither Morningstar nor its content providers are responsible for any damages or losses arising from any use of this information. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Article copyright 2012 by Morningstar, Inc. Reprinted with permission from Morningstar, Inc. The statements and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author. Fidelity Investments cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any statements or data.

Closed end funds may trade at a discount (or premium) to their NAV and are subject to the market fluctuations of their underlying investments. Shares of closed end funds frequently trade at a market price that is a discount to their NAV. Closed end funds are subject to management fees and other expenses.

The Closed End Fund Screener may include closed end funds not registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940

626408.2.0