At the beginning of the first quarter of 2018, only the Consumer Non-cyclicals and Financials sectors earn an Attractive-or-better rating. Our sector ratings are based on the aggregation of our fund ratings for every ETF and mutual fund in each sector. See last quarter’s Sector Ratings here.
Investors looking for sector funds that hold quality stocks should look no further than the Consumer Non-cyclicals and Financials sectors. These sectors house the highest rated funds. Figures 4 through 7 provide more details. The primary driver behind an Attractive fund rating is good portfolio management, or good stock picking, with low total annual costs.
Attractive-or-better ratings do not always correlate with Attractive-or-better total annual costs. This fact underscores that (1) cheap funds can dupe investors and (2) investors should invest only in funds with good stocks and low fees.
Our Robo-Analyst technology empowers our unique ETF and mutual fund rating methodology, which leverages our rigorous analysis of each fund’s holdings.[1]
See Figures 4 through 13 for a detailed breakdown of ratings distributions by sector. See our ETF & mutual fund screener for rankings, ratings and reports on 7000+ mutual funds and 400+ ETFs. Our fund rating methodology is detailed here.
All of our reports on the best & worst ETFs and mutual funds in every sector are available here.
Figure 1: Ratings for All Sectors
Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings
To earn an Attractive-or-better Predictive Rating, an ETF or mutual fund must have high-quality holdings and low costs. Only the top 30% of all ETFs and mutual funds earn our Attractive or better ratings.
John Hancock Multifactor Consumer Staples ETF (JHMS) is the top rated Consumer Non-cyclicals fund. It gets our Very Attractive rating by allocating over 45% of its value to Attractive-or-better-rated stocks.
Saratoga Energy and Basic Materials Portfolio (SBMBX) is the worst Energy fund. It gets our Very Unattractive rating by allocating over 66% of its value to Unattractive-or-worse-rated stocks. Making matters worse, it charges investors annual costs of 6.94%.
Figure 2 shows the distribution of our Predictive Ratings for all sector ETFs and mutual funds.
Figure 2: Distribution of ETFs & Mutual Funds (Assets and Count) by Predictive Rating
Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings
Figure 3 offers additional details on the quality of the sector funds. Note that the average total annual cost of Very Unattractive funds is almost five times that of Very Attractive funds.
Figure 3: Predictive Rating Distribution Stats
* Avg TAC = Weighted Average Total Annual Costs
Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings
This table shows that only the best of the best funds get our Very Attractive Rating: they must hold good stocks AND have low costs. Investors deserve to have the best of both and we are here to give it to them.
Ratings by Sector
Figure 4 presents a mapping of Very Attractive funds by sector. The chart shows the number of Very Attractive funds in each sector and the percentage of assets in each sector allocated to funds that are rated Very Attractive.
Figure 4: Very Attractive ETFs & Mutual Funds by Sector
Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings
Figure 5 presents the data charted in Figure 4.
Figure 5: Very Attractive ETFs & Mutual Funds by Sector
Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings
Figure 6 presents a mapping of Attractive funds by sector. The chart shows the number of Attractive funds in each sector and the percentage of assets allocated to Attractive-rated funds in each sector.
Figure 6: Attractive ETFs & Mutual Funds by Sector
Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings
Figure 7 presents the data charted in Figure 6.
Figure 7: Attractive ETFs & Mutual Funds by Sector
Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings
Figure 8 presents a mapping of Neutral funds by sector. The chart shows the number of Neutral funds in each sector and the percentage of assets allocated to Neutral-rated funds in each sector.
Figure 8: Neutral ETFs & Mutual Funds by Sector
Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings
Figure 9 presents the data charted in Figure 8.
Figure 9: Neutral ETFs & Mutual Funds by Sector
Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings
Figure 10 presents a mapping of Unattractive funds by fund sector. The chart shows the number of Unattractive funds in each sector and the percentage of assets allocated to Unattractive-rated funds in each sector.
The landscape of sector ETFs and mutual funds is littered with Unattractive funds. Investors in Basic Materials have put over 96% of their assets in Unattractive-rated funds.
Figure 10: Unattractive ETFs & Mutual Funds by Sector
Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings
Figure 11 presents the data charted in Figure 10.
Figure 11: Unattractive ETFs & Mutual Funds by Sector
Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings
Figure 12 presents a mapping of Very Unattractive funds by fund sector. The chart shows the number of Very Unattractive funds in each sector and the percentage of assets in each sector allocated to funds that are rated Very Unattractive.
Figure 12: Very Unattractive ETFs & Mutual Funds by Sector
Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings
Figure 13 presents the data charted in Figure 12.
Figure 13: Very Unattractive ETFs & Mutual Funds by Sector
Source: New Constructs, LLC and company filings
This article originally published on January 4, 2018.
Disclosure: David Trainer, Kyle Guske II, and Sam McBride 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.