How To Avoid The Worst Sector ETFs 1Q18 – ValueWalk Premium
Worst Sector ETFs 1Q18

How To Avoid The Worst Sector ETFs 1Q18

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.

Get The Timeless Reading eBook in PDF

Get the entire 10-part series on Timeless Reading in PDF. Save it to your desktop, read it on your tablet, or email to your colleagues.

We respect your email privacy

See 2017 Hedge Fund Letters.

The large number of ETFs has little to do with serving your best interests. Below are 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.

  1. 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 0.51%, which is the average total annual costs of the 226 U.S. equity Sector ETFs we cover. The weighted average is lower at 0.26%, which highlights how investors tend to put their money in ETFs with low fees.

Figure 1 shows PowerShares KBW High Dividend Yield Financial (KBWD) is the most expensive sector ETF and Schwab U.S. REIT ETF (SCHH) is the least expensive. PowerShares (KBWD) provides one of the most expensive ETFs while Fidelity (FSTA, FNCL, FTEC) ETFs are among the cheapest.

Figure 1: 5 Most and Least Expensive Sector ETFs

Worst Sector ETFs 1Q18

Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings

Investors need not pay high fees for quality holdings. Fidelity MSCI Financials Index (FNCL) is the best ranked sector ETF in Figure 1. FNCL’s Neutral Portfolio Management rating and 0.09% total annual cost earns it a Very Attractive rating. VanEck Vectors Mortgage REIT Income ETF (MORT) is the best ranked sector ETF overall. MORT’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 Neutral 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 ETFs holdings matters more than its price.

  1. 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

Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings

PowerShares (PEZ, PSCC, PSCE, PTH, PSR, PSCU) appears more often than any other providers in Figure 2, which means that they offer the most ETFs with the worst holdings.

Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) is the worst rated ETF in Figure 2. PowerShares S&P Small Cap Energy Portfolio (PSCE), PowerShares S&P Small Cap Utilities Portfolio (PSCU), State Street SPDR S&P Internet ETF (XWEB), and PowerShares DWA Healthcare Momentum PHT) also earn a Very Unattractive predictive overall rating, which means not only do they hold poor stocks, they charge high total annual costs.

Our overall ratings on ETFs are based primarily on our stock ratings of their holdings.

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[1] is necessary due diligence because an ETF’s performance is only as good as its holdings’ performance. Don’t just take our word for it, see what Barron’s says on this matter.


Analyzing each holding within funds is no small task. Our Robo-Analyst technology enables us to perform this diligence with scale and provide the research needed to fulfill the fiduciary duty of care. 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 January 31, 2018.

Disclosure: David Trainer and Kyle Guske II receive no compensation to write about any specific stock, sector, or theme.

Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and StockTwits for real-time alerts on all our research.

[1] Ernst & Young’s recent white paper “Getting ROIC Right” proves the superiority of our holdings research and analytics.

Article by Kyle Guske II, New Constructs


Saved Articles

The top investors are reading ValuewalkPremium.

Click here to learn why