The Basic Materials sector ranks fourth out of the 11 sectors as detailed in our 2Q19 Sector Ratings for ETFs and Mutual Funds report. Last quarter, the Basic Materials sector ranked third. It gets our Neutral rating, which is based on an aggregation of ratings of the 149 stocks in the Basic Materials sector as of April 11, 2019. See a recap of our 1Q19 Sector Ratings here.
Figures 1 and 2 show the five best and worst rated ETFs and mutual funds in the sector. Not all Basic Materials sector ETFs and mutual funds are created the same. The number of holdings varies widely (from 25 to 189). This variation creates drastically different investment implications and, therefore, ratings.
Investors seeking exposure to the Basic Materials sector should buy one of the Attractive-or-better rated ETFs or mutual funds from Figures 1 and 2.
Our Robo-Analyst technology[1] empowers our unique ETF and mutual fund rating methodology, which leverages our rigorous analysis of each fund’s holdings.[2] We think advisors and investors focused on prudent investment decisions should include analysis of fund holdings in their research process for ETFs and mutual funds.
Figure 1: ETFs with the Best & Worst Ratings
* Best ETFs exclude ETFs with TNAs less than $100 million for inadequate liquidity.
Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings
Four ETFs (SLX, PYZ, PSCM, JHMA) are excluded from Figure 1 because their total net assets (TNA) are below $100 million and do not meet our liquidity minimums.
Figure 2: Mutual Funds with the Best & Worst Ratings
* Best mutual funds exclude funds with TNAs less than $100 million for inadequate liquidity.
Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings
PICK is the top-rated Basic Materials ETF and FMFTX is the top-rated Basic Materials mutual fund. PICK earns a Very Attractive rating and FMFTX earns a Neutral rating.
XLB is the worst rated Basic Materials ETF and FMFAX is the worst rated Basic Materials mutual fund. XLB earns an Unattractive rating and FMFAX earns a Very Unattractive rating.
149 stocks of the 2750+ we cover are classified as Basic Materials stocks.
The Danger Within
Buying a fund without analyzing its holdings is like buying a stock without analyzing its business and finances. Put another way, research on fund holdings is necessary due diligence because a fund’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.
PERFORMANCE OF HOLDINGs = PERFORMANCE OF FUND
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.
Figures 3 and 4 show the rating landscape of all Basic Materials ETFs and mutual funds.
Figure 3: Separating the Best ETFs From the Worst ETFs
Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings
Figure 4: Separating the Best Mutual Funds from the Worst Mutual Funds
Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings
This article originally published on April 11, 2019.
Disclosure: David Trainer, Peter Apockotos, and Kyle Guske 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] Harvard Business School features the powerful impact of our research automation technology in the case New Constructs: Disrupting Fundamental Analysis with Robo-Analysts.
[2] Ernst & Young’s recent white paper "Getting ROIC Right" proves the superiority of our holdings research and analytics.