By Paul R. La Monica
Wednesday's massive market selloff may have some investors contemplating whether or not they should dial back their exposure to risky assets. So-called low or minimum volatility funds might seem like a tempting way to do that. But, while they are designed to limit downside, many popular low- or minimum-volatility exchange-traded funds aren't what they're cracked up to be.
Top low-vol ETFs are down between 2.5% and 3.5% in the past five trading days, so they haven't exactly delivered on their promise to protect investors during times of market turmoil. The S&P 500 has slid about 3.1% during the same time frame.
The fact that these funds haven't done better than the broader market during this recent tumultuous stretch is more troubling when you consider that these funds have also lagged behind the broader market rally this year and over the long haul.
The S&P 500 has surged more than 24% this year and nearly 85% over the past five years. Meanwhile, the Invesco S&P 500 Low Volatility ETF is up only 11% in 2024 and 20% over the past five years. The Vanguard U.S. Minimum Volatility ETF has fared a little better but still trails the S&P 500, gaining about 16% this year and 32% since late December 2019.
Low- and min-vol funds don't all take the same approach to protecting investors from steep selloffs, so investors need to do their homework and check closely to see what these ETFs actually own.
The iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF, which is up about 14% this year, has a roughly equal-weighted approach and only one of its five biggest holdings, Microsoft, is a member the vaunted Magnificent Seven of tech. The remaining companies in the top five are less-risky stocks such as Walmart, Merck, Cisco, and Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway.
Berkshire Hathaway is also the fifth-largest holding in the Fidelity Low Volatility Factor ETF, accounting for 2.1% of the fund's assets. Microsoft is also the second-largest position in this fund. But Apple, Alphabet, and Amazon round out the top five, and these four tech giants make up a combined 22% weighting in the fund.
So, the Fidelity ETF doesn't look dramatically different from a run-of-the-mill S&P 500 ETF. That may be a big reason why the Fidelity ETF has gained 57.5% over the past five years. While that is still lagging behind the broader market, it is performing better than many of its low-vol/min-vol peers.
Other top low-vol ETFs skew more heavily toward less-risky stocks. The Invesco fund, which also takes a roughly equal-weighted approach, has Coca-Cola, Berkshire Hathaway (again), Procter & Gamble, Colgate-Palmolive, and top garbage/recycling company Republic Services in its top five. Financials, utilities, industrials, and consumer staples are the largest sectors represented in the fund, accounting for a combined 68% of its assets.
And then there's the Vanguard fund, which seems to take a hybrid approach. Despite having "minimum volatility" in its name, nearly 25% of the ETF's assets are in tech stocks, including top holding Macom Technology Solutions, a semiconductor company. But other large positions in the fund are more value-oriented, including P&G, utility Southern Co., CME Group, and General Mills.
Clearly, there is not one simple strategy for low-volatility investing. With that in mind, Ronald Temple, chief market strategist with Lazard, told Barron's that equal-weighted funds for the S&P 500 could be a good bet for investors looking to minimize risk.
Dividend-paying stocks could also be a good way for investors to counter volatility. David Bahnsen, chief investment officer with The Bahnsen Group, told Barron's that he's been finding value in the healthcare and consumer-staples sectors.
Bahnsen said he's not particularly worried that the healthcare sector's revenue and profits will suffer due to political changes (think vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as nominee to lead the Department of Health and Human Services). He likes Merck and Amgen, both of which have dividend yields above 3%.
In consumer staples, Bahnsen owns Pepsi and General Mills, both of which sport yields north of 3.5%. Bahnsen says that such companies paying stable dividends can help investors sleep at night. "Investors should look for lower volatility," he said. "There's more downside to companies with hyperstretched valuations."
Along those lines, the Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF now trades at 35 times 2025 earnings estimates. The SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 High Dividend ETF, whose top holdings include snack and breakfast-food giant Kellanova and drug makers Bristol Myers Squibb and Gilead Sciences, has a P/E of just under 13.
So there are plenty of opportunities for investors to employ a low-volatility stock-picking strategy without buying the funds that are specifically labeled low or minimum volatility...but in reality are still risky.
Write to Paul R. La Monica at paul.lamonica@barrons.com
This content was created by Barron's, which is operated by Dow Jones & Co. Barron's is published independently from Dow Jones Newswires and The Wall Street Journal.
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
December 19, 2024 15:41 ET (20:41 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2024 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Comments