VistaShares

This address is how we stay in touch with the professionals who follow our work.

VistaShares delivers innovative Liquid Alternative investment solutions for today's investors. VistaShares ETFs are actively managed by industry and investment experts, offering a number of distinct strategies. Supercycle® Growth Equity ETFs seek exposure to technology-driven economic Supercycles® that the adviser believes may offer long-term growth potential. Target 15® option-income ETFs seek to generate monthly income while complementing a core equity portfolio. Income is not guaranteed and will vary, and the Target 15® name refers to the strategy's objective rather than a guaranteed or promised return. Investing involves risk, including possible loss of principal. There is no guarantee that any investment objective will be achieved, and past performance does not guarantee future results.

About this address

vsharesnotes.com belongs to VistaShares and we use it for the email we send. Our main website is vistashares.com, and that is where our published information lives.

If a message from vsharesnotes.com reached you and you want to confirm it came from us, write to info@vistashares.com or call (844) 875-2288.

What this address covers

Notes from this address cover thematic funds and the trends behind them, with space, robotics, defence and power as the recurring subjects. Each is a story about decades rather than quarters, and each is carried by companies whose fortunes can swing sharply in the short run even when the long-run case is intact.

The interest here is in how those stories become portfolios: the screens, the weightings, the rebalancing rules and the trade-offs between a fund that captures a trend closely and one that is easy to own beside everything else.

Those trade-offs decide what a client actually experiences, and they are set long before the first market move that tests them.

Why a trend cuts across sectors

Traditional sector classifications sort companies by what they sell today. A trend sorts them by what they are exposed to tomorrow, and that cuts across the usual lines. A single robotics trend can draw from industrials, information technology and health care. A power trend can draw from utilities, industrials, energy and materials.

That is the point of a trend, and it has consequences. A thematic fund will often look nothing like the sectors a client already owns, which can be useful for diversification. It will also bring together companies that respond very differently to interest rates, commodity prices and the economy, so its behaviour can be hard to predict from the trend alone.

Space is a good illustration. Its companies include large, established aerospace and defence contractors, mid-sized component makers, satellite operators with steady service revenue, and small firms that are still years from profit. Put together, they share a story but not a business model.

Defence and power bring a different mix: established firms with large backlogs alongside smaller suppliers whose fortunes depend on winning particular contracts or connecting particular projects to the grid.

Reading the list of holdings, and asking which kind of company carries most of the weight, is usually more informative than reading the description of the trend.

The mix of company types also affects how a trend responds to the economy. Companies with long contracts and government customers tend to have steadier revenue. Companies selling to industrial buyers rise and fall with capital spending. Young companies funded by investors depend on markets being willing to keep funding them.

A thematic fund weighted towards one of those groups will behave like that group, whatever its name. That is why two funds on the same trend can feel very different to hold, and why the description of a trend is only the start of understanding a fund built on it.

It also means a trend's clearest long-run case and its most volatile stretches can arrive together, because the companies most exposed to the change are often the ones least able to weather a difficult market.

That cross-sector spread also complicates comparisons. A thematic fund's results are easy to set against a broad market index, but the more useful comparison is often against the sectors its holdings actually come from, which shows whether the trend added anything beyond those sectors' own movements.

For that reason a thematic fund is often easiest to understand by reading it the way a portfolio manager would: by holding, by sector and by size, rather than by the story that brought it together.

Seen that way, many thematic funds turn out to be concentrated bets on a few sectors and a few sizes of company, wrapped in a story that makes them look broader than they are.

How a thematic index is built

Most thematic funds follow an index, and the index rules decide almost everything about the fund. The first rule defines the universe: which companies count as part of the trend. Some indexes require that a minimum share of a company's revenue comes from the trend. Others use classifications, keyword searches of company filings, or a panel's judgement. Each method draws the line in a different place.

The second rule decides the weights. Weighting by market value puts most of the money in the largest companies, which may be the ones for whom the trend is the smallest part of their business. Equal weighting spreads the money evenly, which raises the weight of smaller, often more volatile companies. Many indexes use a mix, with caps on individual positions to limit concentration.

The third set of rules covers maintenance: how often the index is reviewed, how companies are added or removed, and how trading costs are managed when it rebalances. A trend that is changing quickly can see its index change a great deal at each review.

These rules are published in the index methodology. It is a dry document, and it explains more about how a thematic fund will behave than anything written about the trend itself.

Two funds tracking the same trend can hold quite different companies if their indexes draw the line differently, so comparing methodologies is often more useful than comparing names.

Index history deserves a careful look as well. Many thematic indexes are newer than they first appear, and some report results calculated for years before the index existed, using today's rules applied to past data. Those back-calculated figures help in understanding the rules, but they describe a portfolio nobody actually held.

Turnover is the other practical matter. An index whose membership changes a great deal at each review creates trading costs inside the fund, and those costs are not part of the stated fee. The methodology and the fund's annual report together show how large that turnover has been, and whether it has changed as the trend has matured.

Some funds are actively managed rather than tied to an index. In that case the same choices are made by a portfolio manager rather than by published rules, and the prospectus and holdings reports become the main way to see how the trend is being defined in practice.

Taken together, these rules decide more about a thematic fund's behaviour than the trend it is named after, and they are worth reading before anything else about it.

Reading two methodologies side by side, even briefly, is usually enough to see why two thematic funds with similar names can end up holding quite different companies.