≡ Menu

An introduction to thematic ETFs

The Mr Men as an illustration of the variety of thematic ETFs

This article on thematic ETFs is by The Lone Exchanger from Team Monevator. Come back every Monday for another fresh perspective.

Opening up his browser and heading to the ‘Funds’ page of his online broker, The Lone Exchanger felt like trying something new.

Navigating away from the relative safety of his All-World Tracker, he discovered a fresh and potentially exciting world…

Setting the stage

We know the drill by now for long-term financial independence. Budget effectively and put aside as much as you can in tax-efficient savings vehicles. Make a global index tracker fund the core of your strategy.

But where is the fun in that? In dutifully popping a portion of your hard-earned wedge into a slow and steady grower?

Surely the game played by these City types isn’t that complicated?

Well, flicking through the Monevator archives reminds us that over a ten-year period, more than 70% of professional fund managers failed to beat the market.

What chance do you or I have of doing better?

Not much.

But human nature is curious. Despite all the evidence that index funds are best for most – and that successful stockpicking is fiendishly difficult – there remains a temptation to try to beat the market to juice returns.

And as ever the financial world has stepped up to scratch that itch.

Theme-me-up, Scotty

While they’ve been around for well over a decade, ‘thematic’ ETFs have become much more popular in recent years.

The idea is that investors can easily put money into a fund which aims to track an index comprised of a subset of companies who share commonality around a certain theme.

As the name suggests, thematic ETFs offer investors the opportunity to actively invest in that specific field, or theme, without needing to buy lots of individual stocks themselves.

That makes thematic ETFs both similar to, and different from, so-called sector ETFs, which focus on a traditional industry sector, such as Banking, Retail, or Consumer Staples.

Companies held within thematic ETFs often track across different traditional sectors. For example, an ETF focusing on Robotics may contain one company focused on Artificial Intelligence (IT sector), another which manufactures industrial robots (Industrial sector), and one which provides automated surgical equipment (Healthcare sector).

Variations on a theme

There are at least a hundred such thematic ETFs now trading on European exchanges – and many more in the US.

Themes include ‘Ageing Populations’, ‘eSports & Gaming’, and ‘The Future of Food’. They are often focused on future perceived trends or fields.

In recent years, these thematic funds have become especially popular with younger investors who may have a higher risk tolerance – or a higher misunderstanding of risk.

The lowering (or elimination) of share dealing fees and the introduction of fractional share trading has also made it easier to allocate money towards such funds – and to trade in and out of them at will.

The following graph from Defiance ETFs shows the huge flow of funds into thematic ETFs since the start of 2020, compared to other ETF categories such as Financials and Energy:

Source: Defiance ETFs

Storming or performing?

Performance of thematic funds, as with any asset or sub-asset class, is difficult to gauge.

Picking different start dates can change the theoretical returns. And as most investors adjust their holdings over time – ‘dollar-cost averaging’ in at best or selling their winners at worst – the performance over fixed dates can be misleading.

The Accumulator was underwhelmed when he reviewed several popular thematic ETFs in his ten-year review in late 2019.

A deeper delve into thematic ETFs can also be found at The Evidence-Based Investor. Its conclusion was that thematic funds have put up market-beating returns on a 3-5 year timeframe. But they’ve done worse over ten years.

In addition, thematic ETFs were more volatile. That can impact returns over the longer term.

We also need to touch upon costs.

Many large passive ETFs that track broad stock indices have very low costs. Annual charges can be below 0.1%.

In contrast, thematic ETF providers may charge 0.4% or more. This sort of fee drag will dig into your returns over time.

Higher costs may be justified if the ETF is invested in tricky international stocks, or in small cap companies with limited liquidity. But often these ETFs buy large liquid companies listed on major exchanges.

In that case the higher fees charged will go straight into the pockets of the ETF’s management company and the associated index providers.

Risk or reward?

Many of the popular thematic ETFs are focused on the future, with funds often heavily exposed to growth-orientated technology companies.

In a world of relatively slow growth rates and low interest rates, these shares have done well recently due to their strong revenue growth figures and that ultra-low interest rate environment, which boosts the value of their future cash flows.

However if global interest rates start rising, it’s likely that there will be a hit to the valuations of such companies.

Furthermore, we need to be mindful of concentration risk.

If you purchase a broader ETF such as one tracking the S&P 500 in the USA, you have exposure to a mixture of sectors. This will include Financials, Energy, Retail, and Construction, as well as technology. If a particular sector struggles, others may pick up the slack.

In contrast, it’s likely most individual companies in a specific Thematic ETF will move in relative lockstep as there is little diversification. We saw that at the start of this year, when the iShares Clean Energy ETF plunged by around 30% in a couple of months as the sector fell out of favour.

Another consideration is that some companies included within a thematic ETF may have relatively small market capitalisations. This means they could end up being owned in large part by such ETFs.

Should investors’ preferences change and the ETFs get dumped, the funds in turn could be unloading shares in relatively illiquid companies. That could exacerbate share price movements to the downside, increasing volatility.

Holding on

It’s therefore important to look under the hood of a thematic ETF. At the least you should establish the number of individual holdings, and scan to see if anything interesting pops out.

You can do this by pasting the ETF name into a search engine and going to the provider’s website. There should be information on returns, any dividend yields, and exposures to regions and currencies.

As an example of what you might find, until recently the aforementioned iShares Clean Energy ETF only held around 30 companies. Compare that to a world tracker, which could hold more than 3,000. Clearly each individual company will have a far larger impact in the concentrated portfolio.

Furthermore, individual weightings matter. Do the companies held by the ETF have a fairly equal weighting? Or do just a handful make up a large proportion of the fund? In the latter case performance could again be driven by just a few giant positions.

Some holdings within an ETF may only be tangentially related to the theme in question, at least in your view. The index provider will determine how strict or loose its criteria is. Candidate holdings may only need a 25% revenue exposure to the theme to be eligible, for instance.

Consider too the overlap with any existing investments you may own.

Many specialist funds contain giants like Apple, Google, and Amazon – which you probably already hold in your passive global tracker. You’ll be paying a higher cost to hold more of them within a thematic ETF, and increasing your reliance on their performance, too.

High? Low? Silver?

Individual investors are unlikely to beat the market over a long time horizon if they deviate away from passive index trackers – and that includes making forays into thematic ETFs.

With such ETFs, costs – a key determinant of returns – are higher, returns more volatile, and some themes may be subject to boom and bust swings that gyrate with the economic cycle or investor sentiment.

Thematic ETFs do offer the more adventurous investor a glimpse of a more exotic investing world. But caution and due diligence are vital.

See more articles from The Lone Exchanger in their archive.

{ 5 comments }
Weekend reading: Straight to the good stuff, summer 2020 edition post image

What caught my eye this week.

Hello! I’m half-on-holiday this week (and that’s without an NHS app ‘ping’ in earshot…)

My mini-break hasn’t stopped me reading the money and investing Internet. But it does limit my time to waffle on about it.

In other words, straight to the links this week.

Have a cool(er) weekend!

[continue reading…]

{ 16 comments }

Emerging Market bond risks

Emerging market bonds graphic

This is part two of a three-part series investigating whether Emerging Market bonds can enhance passive portfolios. Today we’ll consider Emerging Market bond risks.

In part one we looked at why you might be tempted to cast aside volatile Emerging Market equities in pursuit of the handsome risk-adjusted historic returns of Emerging Market US$ sovereign bonds.

But very few cases are one-sided in investing.

A big question mark still hangs over EM US$ sovereign debt.

Specifically, is its superior historic performance dependent on tailwinds that have mostly died down?

Emerging Market bond risks

The rise of Emerging Market bonds is partly a phoenix-from-the-flames success story.

Burned by crisis in the ’90s, developing world economies reformed their financial institutions. Their governments controlled spending and improved debt-to-GDP ratios. There was the helpful growth of China and globalisation, too.

Credit rating upgrades followed. Investors enjoyed high yields buoyed by outdated perceptions of Emerging Market bond risks.

Demand for EM debt got a further boost as Developed World yields shrunk. Many investors hunted further afield for income like truffle-loving pigs in a forest.

Fast-forward to 2021 and:

Vanguard warns EM bond outperformance could be a historical artifact:

A number of trends – including falling interest rates, tightening spreads, and several equity bear markets – substantially explain what we expect was a historical anomaly.

Over longer periods, we believe investors can reasonably expect to be compensated for equity risk through realization of the equity risk premium.

Source: Vanguard. (“Emerging-market bonds: a fixed income asset with equity-like returns (and risks).” August 2018. Page 7.)

To put that quote in context, Vanguard’s researchers cautioned against expecting Emerging Market bonds to continue to beat Emerging Markets equities on an absolute return basis.

Reading between the lines

Indeed any bond-curious metric we check doesn’t augur well for a repeat of EM bonds’ Olympian performance of the past 20 years. 

Yields have waned on Emerging Market bonds to near historic lows:

Graph showing declining Emerging Market bond yields (1997-2021)

Yield-to-maturity (YTM) peaked at 15.6% in August 1998 as financial shocks ripped through Emerging Markets. The YTM is now below 5%.2

In other words, we’re being offered less reward for taking risk today than the bond investors of yesteryear.

Note, the bulk of long-term bond returns turn on the size of their coupons.3 This is especially true at the intermediate durations that dominate EM US$ sovereigns. Today’s lower bond interest payments signal moderate rewards ahead.

Similarly, credit spreads (vs US Treasuries) have tightened:

A chart plotting the declining credit spread of Emerging Market bonds (1997-2021)

The credit spread peaked at 1321 basis points – that’s 13.2% – in August 1998. The historic low was 1.6% in May 2007, just before the Great Recession convulsed the world. This spread is 3.3% at the time of writing.4

The mountainous credit spreads and yields of the late ’90s and early ’00s indicate EM debt was consigned to basket-case status back then.

A fear of further defaults jacked up yields.

But Emerging Markets comfortably surpassed investor’s low expectations in subsequent years.

Which meant those elevated yields rewarded investors who took on risks that happily failed to materialise.

Default position

The subsiding credit spread indicates the perceived risk of default is lower today.

Comforting. But it also implies there’s less room for ‘equity-like’ upside.

Ultimately defaults will probably rise and fall in line with the global boom-bust cycle. An investor in Emerging Market bonds will lose when yields lag defaults. They’ll win when the market over-reacts and higher yields dominate even as defaults hold steady or decline.

As a passive investor I can no more time this default cycle in bonds than I can exploit stock market turbulence.

EM bond durations have also increased a touch over time. We’re taking on more ‘term risk’ today to bag our yield.

Finally, the EM debt market is much bigger than it was. It’s not a secret anymore.

Prediction time

So much for history’s rear-view mirror. How about forward expectations?

Fund manager Research Affiliates provides a brilliant range of tools, including expected return forecasts.

And these are pretty downbeat for Emerging Markets US$ sovereign bonds over the next ten years:

10-year forecast chart of Emerging Market bonds and Emerging Market equities

This expected returns chart shows annual GBP real returns (based on current valuations) of:

  • 0.7% Emerging Markets US$ sovereign bonds (blue bar)
  • 5.1% Emerging Market equities (red bar)

Note: Research Affiliates offers a range of returns along a probability distribution curve. I’ve stated the mean return.

Research Affiliates also offers an alternative forecast model that shows Emerging Market bonds in a better light. This uses yield and growth predictions instead of current valuations:

Expected return forecast chart for Emerging Market bonds and Emerging Market equitiesHere we see:

  • 2.8% Emerging Markets US$ sovereign bonds (blue bar)
  • 4.8% Emerging Market equities (red bar)

I don’t have an opinion about the efficacy of these different models. You can find Research Affiliate’s methodology on its website if you’d like to delve.

Will Emerging Market bonds yield for you?

One gauge of a bond fund’s annual expected return is its current yield-to-maturity. 

Current yield-to-maturity is a reasonable estimate of what you can expect to earn over the fund’s duration.

The following chart shows that current YTM is quite well-correlated to actual returns for EM US$ sovereigns:

Future bond returns are correlated with today's yield

A quick eyeball of accessible EM US$ sovereign bond funds gives us a starting yield of around 4%. The average duration is about 8.

That’s more encouraging. Although the one thing we can be sure of with any long-range forecast is that it will be wrong!

What should we do?

I don’t think anyone should oust Emerging Market equities from their portfolio expecting Emerging Market bonds to score higher returns.

That’s because it’s reasonable to assume the equity risk premium will reassert itself sooner or later.

Rather, the case turns on the chance of EM US$ sovereigns continuing to deliver superior risk-adjusted returns versus EM equities.

Any retreat from globalisation or a misfire from China’s growth engine will hurt EM equities. And rising EM bond defaults will probably correlate with such stock market drama.

The fates of the two sub-asset classes are therefore intertwined.

That said, Emerging Market governments can raise taxes, dip into currency reserves, and raise loans from the IMF and World Bank. That makes them less risky than EM equities, in my view.

Moreover, Monevator’s friendly quant, ZXSpectrum48k, has argued:

I also like the absence of EM FX exposure which I think you are simply not compensated for in EM equities. EM sovereign debt has produced the same returns as EM equities but with a fraction of the volatility. It also offers a somewhat lower correlation with broader equities.

UK investors are exposed to US$ currency risk via Emerging Markets US$ sovereign bonds, but not to Emerging Market currency risk.

There’s no need to hedge this US$ risk, as Emerging Market bonds should be allocated to the equity side of your portfolio. And currency risk can be seen as a diversifier, as long as it isn’t in your defensive asset allocation.

Same difference

Speaking of diversification, the geographic spread of Emerging Markets US$ sovereign bonds is quite different to Emerging Markets equity.

Take a look at the Regional Split rows below:

Emerging Market bond index characteristics

State Street. “Case for Allocating to Emerging Market Debt.” February 2021. Page 6.

  • Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe, and the Middle East and Africa are much better represented in EM US$ sovereigns.
  • In contrast, the Asia Pacific region dominates Emerging Market equities.

(Note: Emerging Market US$ sovereign bonds are labelled Hard Currency Sovereign EM Debt at the top of the left-hand column.)

You can also see that EM US$ sovereigns have decent yield, intermediate average duration, and a credit risk exposure that’s split across investment grade and sub-investment grade (junk) bonds.

Final asset allocation thoughts

Monevator contributor and former hedge fund manager Lars Kroijer made the case for diversifying into riskier EM government debt in his book Investing Demystified.

Lars suggested a 10% allocation to sub-AA government debt carved out of the equity side. He calculated this was roughly in line with the global split of risky assets between equities, corporate debt, and sub-AA goverment debt. (At the time he was writing).

Lars didn’t argue that Emerging Market bonds were vital or transformative.

Rather Lars was showing how to enhance diversification if you can live with the complexity.

Emerging Market bond risks may be worth taking for diversification

Personally, I haven’t yet been rewarded for increasing complexity in my own portfolio.

Despite this, I do still look for opportunities to diversify. The future often throws up surprises that backtests and forecasts gull us into believing we can factor out.

I have no actionable view on the future direction of US interest rates, the China-America trade relationship, or the fiscal positions of 74 Emerging Market countries.

Nonetheless I’m likely to soon split my EM equity allocation in half. This will enable me to allocate 5% to Emerging Markets US$ sovereign bonds.

Such a small allocation is unlikely to make a big difference one way or the other. But I think it’s appropriate to the merits of the case.

In part three I’ll look at the best Emerging Markets US$ sovereign bonds index trackers we can buy.

(Right after I’ve pulled these fence splinters out of my backside!)

Take it steady,

The Accumulator

P.S. Bond fund taxation is typically higher than with equities. This could be another black mark against Emerging Market bonds if you can’t fit them into your tax shelters.

  1. See Vanguard. “Emerging-market bonds: a fixed income asset with equity-like returns (and risks).” August 2018. Page 7. []
  2. That’s according to the market-dominant JPM EMBIGD index of EM US$ sovereign bonds. []
  3. How much a bond pays in regular interest payments. []
  4. Again, according to the market-leading JPM EMBIGD index of EM US$ sovereign bonds. []
{ 5 comments }
Image of suit armour as symbol of Section 75 protection

This piece on Section 75 is by The Treasurer from Team Monevator. Check back every Monday for more fresh perspectives on personal finance and investing from the Team.

I was once scared of credit cards. I believed saving up for things I wanted to buy was always the right thing to do. Credit cards were the work of the devil. They were designed to trap you in debt at hideous interest rates.

I still believe those things to some extent. If I want something, I’ll save up for it. I only ever splash out if I have a real need, or if I consider it excellent value for money.

And I still think some credit cards – such as those with eye-watering interest rates pushing 40% – are awful. Especially those that target sections of society who can least afford it.

Yet as time has gone on I have also grown to understand that credit cards are essentially tools. Albeit tools with a dangerous edge.

Think of a credit card as like a very sharp knife. Extremely useful in the hands of a Michelin star chef. Less so – and potentially dangerous – when wielded by an amateur cook.

In other words, use credit cards in the right way (often contrarily to the goals of the card provider) and you can benefit, at no cost to you.

Get it wrong and you could find yourself servicing interest for years. That will leave your dreams of early retirement in ruins.

Cashback is a quick credit card win

An obvious way to use a credit card to your ‘advantage’ is cashback.

With a cashback credit card, you earn small amounts of money every time you spend on it. You’ll profit on everything you buy, so long as you pay off the balance in full every single month. That way you avoid paying interest.

I put ‘advantage’ in quotation marks above, because card providers still benefit when you use their card. Retailers must pay the card provider a small fee for each transaction. So using a cashback credit card as I’ve described won’t make your card provider lose sleep.

Of course your card provider won’t mind if you miss a payment and owe them a nice bit of interest, either. So unless you enjoy contributing to a banking giant’s annual Christmas party, set up a monthly direct debit to regularly clear your debt.

What is Section 75?

Now onto another way you can make credit cards work for you – to use one solely to benefit from Section 75 legislation.

Section 75 is part of the Consumer Credit Act. (Section 75 of it, shockingly enough).

This legislation dates back to 1974. The legal eagles who wrote it thought it would be unfair to have someone borrow to pay for something on a credit card, only to not receive the item, or to suffer issues down the line. Especially if they were still in the process of paying for it!

Today, almost 50 years later, Section 75 remains a powerful consumer tool:

  • Pay for something on a credit card that costs between £100 – £30,000 and Section 75 will automatically apply to your purchase. (As long as the thing you’ve purchased is for you).
  • Section 75 means the card provider which you buy from is equally liable for your purchase. So if anything goes wrong, you can knock at their door for a refund.

Importantly, you don’t have to pay for the whole item on a credit card for Section 75 to apply.

Pay just £1 or 25p –or any other humorously low figure – on a credit card, and your whole purchase is protected. Up to £30,000.

So if you’re buying a new car, then agreeing with the dealer to pay £100 on a credit card will give you protection on the whole purchase price.

You may find this a bit silly. But some retailers may put restrictions on the amount they’ll accept on a credit card, due to the processing costs involved.

(Since 2018 retailers can no longer charge a fee to use a credit card. However they can refuse to accept them).

Section 75: What are the main benefits?

Section 75 is particularly good for dealing with cases whereby a retailer has gone into liquidation.

For instance, you order a sofa and the supplier goes bust between the time it takes your payment and the delivery date – which can often be months away. Section 75 protection means the card provider can refund your cash. This sure beats making your case to an appointed administrator. There you’d probably have to settle for pennies in the pound, at best.

Section 75 doesn’t apply only when a retailer has gone bust. Say you want a refund for a defective or missing item and you’ve had no luck convincing the retailer to give you your money back. Section 75 enables you to seek a refund from your credit card provider instead.

A Section 75 claim doesn’t mean you’ll definitely be refunded – the card provider may not agree with your claim. But it’s fair to say that a banking giant is far more likely to pay up than a struggling retail provider keen to keep your cash. Financial companies usually have deeper pockets.

Even if your Section 75 claim is turned down, that’s not the end of the story. When you’ve paid on a credit card, you have the added option of taking your case to the free Financial Ombudsman service. It will then make a ruling on the behaviour of your card provider.

Remember, Section 75 makes both the retailer and card provider equally liable. So you don’t have to take your refund case to the retailer first. You can go straight to the card provider if you wish.

Section 75: What should I look out for?

There are no real drawbacks of Section 75. However there are some things to watch out for should you wish to rely on the protection.

Firstly, if you’re paying for something with Section 75 protection in mind, ensure it’s for your own personal use as the cardholder.

While the law isn’t set in stone, you may suffer some pushback if you make a claim via Section 75 for an item or service that wasn’t intended for your own use. (That said, one popular consumer website suggests that group bookings should be covered.)

Secondly, for Section 75 to apply make sure the thing you’re buying is actually over £100.

Annoyingly, if you buy two single flight tickets costing under £100 each – with a combined cost over £100 – you probably won’t have any luck with a Section 75 claim. However, a return ticket costing more than £100 means the cover will apply. It’s considered a ‘single item’ in the eyes of the Consumer Credit Act.

Thirdly, there may be an issue with relying on Section 75 protection if you buy via a third-party intermediary. More on that below.

Finally, if you’re buying something costing less than £100, don’t assume that you haven’t got any protection at all.

Lesser ‘chargeback’ protection applies for all purchases made on either a credit or debit card. This protection doesn’t have a legal basis. Rather it is part of rules associated with the major card processors (Visa, Mastercard, and Amex).

With chargeback you can ask your card provider for a refund. However unlike Section 75, under chargeback your card provider will seek a refund from the retailer you purchased from, rather than reimbursing you directly.

While it’s much less powerful than Section 75 protection, chargeback is still a consumer tool worth remembering.

My own personal horror stories

Knowing I’m a personal finance wonk, friends and family members often come to me for unofficial guidance. Despite this I’ve found convincing them to sign up for a credit card – solely for Section 75 protection – a tough sell.

That’s ironic, given that in my personal life I’ve seen the importance of paying for big purchases on a credit card.

A few years back, a former flatmate contacted me for help. She had paid upfront for a teeth whitening service. The provider went into liquidation when she was only a quarter of the way through her treatment. I was horrified to learn she’d put the £3,000 treatment on a debit card.

Unfortunately my efforts to convince her to use a credit card for all big purchases in future couldn’t bring back her lost cash. And I’m sorry to report that her chargeback claim was unsuccessful.

Similarly, but fortunately not so devastating, a family member recently purchased a large camping item from a retailer based in continental Europe. The value was just shy of £1,000.

The first I’d heard about this purchase was when I was contacted to ask for help when the item didn’t arrive. I asked what was used to purchase the item. Yes, you guessed it, a debit card.

A package did eventually turn up, albeit in a very damaged box. It was the wrong item! The cost to send it back was over £80. Other than explaining to my family member how easy it would have been to claim back the cost from a credit card provider, there was nothing I could do.

The same family member also experienced difficulty in claiming a refund for a long haul flight last year that was later cancelled due to Covid-19.

While Virgin Atlantic eventually gave way and refunded the money many months later, this was another instance where Section 75 would probably have come up trumps.

Third-party complications

If you want to rely on Section 75, try not to use a third-party service if you can.

There have been a few stories of people missing out on Section 75 protection due to a requirement that there must be a direct link between the customer, the credit card company, and the supplier or retailer.

Using a third-party website, such as a travel agent, may therefore mean you won’t be able to make a claim under Section 75. That’s because the travel agent may be seen as ‘breaking the link’ between parties.

I say ‘may’ as the rules on this are pretty blurred, and there’s conflicting information across the web.

To play it safe, always book direct if you can. So if booking a flight over £100, for instance, it’s probably best to go directly to the airline’s website rather than going through a travel agent, if you want to maximize your Section 75 protection.

Section 75: The takeaway

I’m wary of calling anything a ‘no-brainer’. We should always consider the drawbacks of any particular product.

Yet, as long as you don’t use a credit card to recklessly borrow, signing up for a credit card and using it to pay for anything over £100 really is a no-brainer, due to the free Section 75 protection you get.

But don’t just take my word for it – let’s hear from some readers. Have you ever gone to your card provider to make a Section 75 claim? What was your experience? Let us know in the comments below.

You can see all The Treasurer’s articles in a dedicated archive.

{ 13 comments }