Skip to main content

Sound Advice: February 22, 2023

Always Look at Underlying Fund Holdings

It seems easy enough to look at the name of a mutual fund or exchange-traded fund and assume what kinds of stocks are held by the fund.  But in more than a few cases, that assumption could prove costly.  A common example of this would be mutual funds that are labeled “aggressive”.  That’s a label that one would think suggests the likelihood of above average potential for gains.  More likely, however, it means the fund holds stocks that are highly volatile.  In weak markets, they will probably fall farther; in strong markets, they might rise faster.  But the greater likelihood is that the label is a marketing gimmick for underlying holdings that are relatively benign.

There is another wrinkle of greater concern.  That’s the tendency of some investors to buy a number of large, well-known funds to provide what they believe will be diversification.  At first glance, that would seem to make sense.  The problem, however, is that as fund assets grow, the universe of widely traded stocks narrows.  Why? Because funds running billions of dollars have to focus on stocks with good liquidity, i.e., hundreds of thousands of shares daily.  So as their asset bases get bigger, they end up buying many similar stocks.  The net result is that the investor who buys a bunch ends up holding funds with numerous duplications.  And the hoped-for diversification is not achieved.

A third concern is the prevalence of lopsided holdings.  QQQ, for example, which is the Invesco QQQ Trust, has almost 30% of its assets in Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon.  SPY, the SPDR S&P 500 ETF, has more than 20% concentrated in Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Meta (Facebook), and Alphabet. Then there’s IHF, iShares U.S. Healthcare Providers ETF, which has 37% of its assets in United HealthCare, CVS, and Anthem.  And, no surprise, there are others of this ilk.

The hitch here is that instead of getting diversification, you end up with heavily biased funds that bring with them the considerably increased risk that you tried to avoid by not buying individual stocks.

One approach to sidestep this problem would be to consider ETFs with equal-weighted underlying holdings.  For the S&P 500, an alternative would be RSP, Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF.  For technology, one could consider RYT, Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Technology ETF. The underlying holdings of both of these do indeed offer broad and evenly distributed access to the stock segments they represent.

 

N. Russell Wayne, CFPÒ

203-895-8877

Any questions?  Please contact me at nrwayne@soundasset.com 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sound Advice: January 3, 2025

2025 Market Forecasts: Stupidity Taken To An Extreme   If you know anything about stock market performance, you can only gag at the nonsense “esteemed forecasters” are now putting forth about the prospective path of stocks in the year ahead.   Our cousins in the UK would call this rubbish.   I would not be as kind. Leading the Ship of Fools is the forecast from the Chief Investment Strategist at Oppenheimer who is looking for a year-end 2025 level for the Standard & Poor’s Index of 7,100, a whopping 21% increase from the most recent standing.   Indeed, most of these folks are looking for double-digit gains.   Only two expect stocks to weaken. In the last 30 years, the market has risen by more than 20% only 15 times.   The exceptional span during that time was 1996-1999, which accounted for four of those jumps.   What followed in 2000 through 2002 was the polar opposite: 2000:      -9.1% 2001:     -11.9% ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Sound Advice: January 15, 2025

Why investors shouldn't pay attention to Wall Street forecasts   Investors shouldn't pay attention to Wall Street forecasts for several compelling reasons: Poor accuracy Wall Street forecasts have a terrible track record of accuracy. Studies show that their predictions are often no better than random chance, with accuracy rates as low as 47%   Some prominent analysts even perform worse, with accuracy ratings as low as 35% Consistent overestimation Analysts consistently overestimate earnings growth, predicting 10-12%                 annual growth when the reality is closer to 6%.   This overoptimism can                 lead investors to make overly aggressive bets in the market. Inability to predict unpredictable events The stock market is influenced by numerous unpredictable factors, including geopolitical events, technological changes, and company-specific news.   Anal...
Post a Comment
Read more

Sound Advice: July 16, 2025

Fixed annuities are poor investments Fixed annuities are often criticized as poor investments for several reasons, despite their reputation for providing stable, predictable income.  Here are the key drawbacks and concerns:   High Fees and Commissions Internal Fees:  Fixed annuities can carry a range of fees, including administrative charges, mortality expense risk fees, and rider fees. These can add up to 2%–4% per year, significantly eroding returns over time. Commissions:  Sales agents and financial advisors often receive high commissions for selling annuities—sometimes as much as 5%–8% of the invested amount. This creates a financial incentive for advisers to recommend them, even when they may not be the best fit for the client. Comparison to Other Investments:  Mutual funds and ETFs typically have much lower fees and commissions, making them more cost-effective for long-term growth. Limited Growth a...
Post a Comment
Read more