Question: Why are there so many ETFs?
Answer: ETF providers tend to make lots of money on each ETF so they create more products to sell.
The large number of ETFs has little to do with serving your best interests. We leverage reliable fundamental data to identify three red flags you can use to avoid the worst ETFs:
1. Inadequate Liquidity
This issue is the easiest to avoid, and our advice is simple. Avoid all ETFs with less than $100 million in assets. Low levels of liquidity can lead to a discrepancy between the price of the ETF and the underlying value of the securities it holds. Plus, low asset levels tend to mean lower volume in the ETF and larger bid-ask spreads.
2. High Fees
ETFs should be cheap, but not all of them are. The first step here is to know what is cheap and expensive.
To ensure you are paying average or below average fees, invest only in ETFs with total annual costs below 0.47%, which is the average total annual costs of the 255 U.S. equity Sector ETFs we cover. The weighted average is lower at 0.28%, which highlights how investors tend to put their money in ETFs with low fees.
Figure 1 shows Invesco KBW High Dividend Yield Financial ETF (KBWD) is the most expensive sector ETF and Schwab U.S. REIT ETF (SCHH) is the least expensive. Simplify (VCAR, VPOP) provides two of the most expensive ETFs while Fidelity (FSTA, FNCL, FHLC) ETFs are among the cheapest.
Figure 1: 5 Most and Least Expensive Sector ETFs
Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings
Investors need not pay high fees for quality holdings. Fidelity MSI Consumer Staples Index ETF (FSTA) is the best ranked sector ETF in Figure 1. FSTA’s Attractive Portfolio Management rating and 0.09% total annual cost earns it a Very Attractive rating. iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF (ITB) is the best ranked sector ETF overall. ITB’s Attractive Portfolio Management rating and 0.45% total annual cost also earns it a Very Attractive rating.
On the other hand, Schwab U.S. REIT ETF (SCHH) holds poor stocks and earns our Very Unattractive rating, yet has low total annual costs of 0.08%. No matter how cheap an ETF, if it holds bad stocks, its performance will be bad. The quality of an ETF’s holdings matters more than its price.
3. Poor Holdings
Avoiding poor holdings is by far the hardest part of avoiding bad ETFs, but it is also the most important because an ETF’s performance is determined more by its holdings than its costs. Figure 2 shows the ETFs within each sector with the worst holdings or portfolio management ratings.
Figure 2: Sector ETFs with the Worst Holdings
iShares (IYC, IECS, USRT) and Invesco (PSCM, PSCF, PSCU) appear more often than any other providers in Figure 2, which means that they offer the most ETFs with the worst holdings.
First Trust NYSE Arca Biotechnology Index Fund (FBT) is the worst rated ETF in Figure 2. WisdomTree Cloud Computing Fund (WCLD), State Street SPDR SP&P Aerospace & Defense ETF (XAR), iShares Core U.S. REIT ETF (USRT), and Fidelity MSCI Energy Index ETF (FENY) also earn a Very Unattractive predictive overall rating, which means not only do they hold poor stocks, they charge high total annual costs.
The Danger Within
Buying an ETF without analyzing its holdings is like buying a stock without analyzing its business and finances. Put another way, research on ETF holdings is necessary due diligence because an ETF’s performance is only as good as its holdings’ performance.
PERFORMANCE OF ETF's HOLDINGS = PERFORMANCE OF ETF
Analyzing each holding within funds is no small task. OurRobo-Analyst technology enables us to perform this diligence with scale. More of the biggest names in the financial industry (see At BlackRock, Machines Are Rising Over Managers to Pick Stocks) are now embracing technology to leverage machines in the investment research process. Technology may be the only solution to the dual mandate for research: cut costs and fulfill the fiduciary duty of care. Investors, clients, advisors and analysts deserve the latest in technology to get the diligence required to make prudent investment decisions.
This article originally published on October 22, 2021.
Disclosure: David Trainer, Kyle Guske II, and Matt Shuler receive no compensation to write about any specific stock, sector, or theme.
Analyst's Disclosure: I/we have no stock, option or similar derivative position in any of the companies mentioned, and no plans to initiate any such positions within the next 72 hours.
Seeking Alpha's Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.