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

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

What the mail from here is about

Mail from this address is about thematic investing: funds built around a long-run change rather than an industry or a region. Space, robotics, defence and power are examples, each a structural shift that cuts across the usual sector lines and draws in companies that would otherwise never sit in the same portfolio. The idea behind a trend is often easy to state. Turning it into a list of holdings is where the real decisions are made.

The writing here stays with those decisions: how a trend is defined, which companies make the cut, how they are weighted, and how a fund built that way behaves next to the broad holdings a client already owns.

Most of the useful answers about a thematic fund are in its rules rather than its name, and that is where these notes spend their time.

Four trends, four different clocks

Trends run on different clocks, and the clock matters as much as the idea. Space runs on launch schedules, satellite replacement cycles and a mix of government and commercial customers, with long stretches of investment before revenue arrives. Many of the companies are young, small and still proving their business models, which makes the trend volatile even when progress is steady.

Robotics runs on industrial capital spending. Factories buy automation when labour is scarce, when the economics of a production line change, or when a manufacturer moves production closer to home. That spending rises and falls with the industrial cycle, so a trend with a strong long-run case can still have years when orders slow sharply.

Defence runs on government budgets and procurement programmes that can last for decades. Orders are large and visible, and contracts are long, which gives the trend a steadier rhythm. But budgets are political decisions, and changes in priorities can shift spending between programmes quickly.

Power runs on utility planning, regulation and the pace at which new generation and grid capacity can be approved and built. Demand is rising, but supply moves at the speed of permits and equipment lead times.

Understanding which clock a trend runs on helps explain why a fund built on it can move sharply in ways that have little to do with the strength of the long-run story.

Those clocks also interact with the wider market. Young, small companies in trends like space tend to be sensitive to interest rates and to how readily investors will fund businesses that are still years from profit. Established firms in defence and power tend to be more sensitive to budgets, regulation and the price of the inputs they use.

So a portfolio holding several thematic funds is not necessarily diversified across trends. If most of them rely on small, fast-growing companies, they may all respond to the same change in financing conditions at the same time, whatever their trends are called.

Matching the clock of a trend to the time horizon of the client holding it is one of the more useful exercises an adviser can do, and it usually says more about fit than the trend's long-run case does on its own.

None of these clocks can be hurried by enthusiasm. Launches slip, factory projects wait for financing, procurement decisions take years and grid projects wait for permits, so the pace at which a trend turns into revenue is usually slower than the pace at which it turns into headlines.

None of this argues for or against any one of them. It argues for knowing which clock a fund is running on before judging how it has done over any particular stretch of months.

A fund that blends several of these clocks can smooth some of the swings, but it also blurs the story, and it becomes harder to say which part of the fund is doing the work in any given year.

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.