Actionable insights straight to your inbox

Energy Sector 2Q19: Best and Worst

The Energy sector ranks sixth out of the 11 sectors as detailed in our 2Q19 Sector Ratings for ETFs and Mutual Funds report. It gets our Neutral rating.
New Constructs leverages reliable fundamental data (https://bit.ly/381hKF1) to provide unconflicted insights into the fundamentals and valuation of private and public businesses. Combining human expertise with cutting-edge machine learning (ML) technologies (featured by Harvard Business School: https://hbs.me/308BaTX), the firm shines a light in the dark corners (e.g. footnotes) of hundreds of thousands of corporate financial filings to reveal critical details that drive uniquely comprehensive and independent credit and equity investment ratings, valuation models and research tools. The Journal of Financial Economics (https://bit.ly/3q6G8LI) reveals: 1. Legacy fundamental datasets suffer from significant inaccuracies, omissions and biases. 2. Only our “novel database” enables investors to overcome those flaws and apply reliable (https://bit.ly/303iuoQ) fundamental data in their research. 3. Our proprietary measures of Core Earnings (https://bit.ly/3bQVrD9) and Earnings Distortion (https://bit.ly/3uJkrF3) materially improve stock picking and forecasting of profits. Harvard Business School and MIT Sloan are not the only institutions to write papers on the superiority of our data and research. Find more papers here (https://bit.ly/3uGW0Ih). Now, all investors, not just Wall Street insiders, can access trustworthy research on the earnings and valuation of stocks, bonds, ETFs, and mutual funds. Elite money managers, advisors and institutions have relied (https://bit.ly/3sCT2mj) on us to lower risk and improve performance since 2004. See our client testimonials (https://bit.ly/3dZaa1G) and media coverage (https://bit.ly/3sxYDu2).
New Constructs leverages reliable fundamental data (https://bit.ly/381hKF1) to provide unconflicted insights into the fundamentals and valuation of private and public businesses. Combining human expertise with cutting-edge machine learning (ML) technologies (featured by Harvard Business School: https://hbs.me/308BaTX), the firm shines a light in the dark corners (e.g. footnotes) of hundreds of thousands of corporate financial filings to reveal critical details that drive uniquely comprehensive and independent credit and equity investment ratings, valuation models and research tools. The Journal of Financial Economics (https://bit.ly/3q6G8LI) reveals: 1. Legacy fundamental datasets suffer from significant inaccuracies, omissions and biases. 2. Only our “novel database” enables investors to overcome those flaws and apply reliable (https://bit.ly/303iuoQ) fundamental data in their research. 3. Our proprietary measures of Core Earnings (https://bit.ly/3bQVrD9) and Earnings Distortion (https://bit.ly/3uJkrF3) materially improve stock picking and forecasting of profits. Harvard Business School and MIT Sloan are not the only institutions to write papers on the superiority of our data and research. Find more papers here (https://bit.ly/3uGW0Ih). Now, all investors, not just Wall Street insiders, can access trustworthy research on the earnings and valuation of stocks, bonds, ETFs, and mutual funds. Elite money managers, advisors and institutions have relied (https://bit.ly/3sCT2mj) on us to lower risk and improve performance since 2004. See our client testimonials (https://bit.ly/3dZaa1G) and media coverage (https://bit.ly/3sxYDu2).

The Energy sector ranks sixth out of the 11 sectors as detailed in our 2Q19 Sector Ratings for ETFs and Mutual Funds report. Last quarter, the Energy sector ranked fifth. It gets our Neutral rating, which is based on an aggregation of ratings of the 176 stocks in the Energy sector. See a recap of our 1Q19 Sector Ratings here.

Figures 1 and 2 show the five best and worst rated ETFs and mutual funds in the sector. Not all Energy sector ETFs and mutual funds are created the same. The number of holdings varies widely (from 16 to 289). This variation creates drastically different investment implications and, therefore, ratings.

Investors should not buy any Energy ETFs or mutual funds because none get an Attractive-or-better rating. If you must have exposure to this sector, you should buy a basket of Attractive-or-better rated stocks and avoid paying undeserved fund fees. Active management has a long history of not paying off.

Our Robo-Analyst technology[1] empowers our unique ETF and mutual fund rating methodology, which leverages our rigorous analysis of each fund’s holdings.[2] We think advisors and investors focused on prudent investment decisions should include analysis of fund holdings in their research process for ETFs and mutual funds.

Figure 1: ETFs with the Best & Worst Ratings – Top 5

Image Source: New Constructs, LLC

* Best ETFs exclude ETFs with TNAs less than $100 million for inadequate liquidity.

Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings

Two ETFs (FTXN, BOON) are excluded from Figure 1 because their total net assets (TNA) are below $100 million and do not meet our liquidity minimums.

Figure 2: Mutual Funds with the Best & Worst Ratings

Image Source: New Constructs, LLC

* Best mutual funds exclude funds with TNAs less than $100 million for inadequate liquidity.

Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings

Three mutual funds (INNNX, RGLIX, APGPX) are excluded from Figure 2 because their total net assets (TNA) are below $100 million and do not meet our liquidity minimums.

FCG is the top-rated Energy ETF and INRSX is the top-rated Energy mutual fund. Both earn a Neutral rating.

OIH is the worst rated Energy ETF and EESAX is the worst Energy mutual fund. They both earn a Very Unattractive rating.

176 stocks of the 2750+ we cover are classified as Energy stocks.

The Danger Within

Buying a fund without analyzing its holdings is like buying a stock without analyzing its business and finances. Put another way, research on fund holdings is necessary due diligence because a fund’s performance is only as good as its holdings’ performance. Don’t just take our word for it, see what Barron’s says on this matter.

PERFORMANCE OF HOLDINGs = PERFORMANCE OF FUND

Analyzing each holding within funds is no small task. Our Robo-Analyst technology enables us to perform this diligence with scale and provide the research needed to fulfill the fiduciary duty of care. More of the biggest names in the financial industry (see At BlackRock, Machines Are Rising Over Managers to Pick Stocks) are now embracing technology to leverage machines in the investment research process. Technology may be the only solution to the dual mandate for research: cut costs and fulfill the fiduciary duty of care. Investors, clients, advisors and analysts deserve the latest in technology to get the diligence required to make prudent investment decisions.

Figures 3 and 4 show the rating landscape of all Energy ETFs and mutual funds.

Figure 3: Separating the Best ETFs From the Worst ETFs

Image Source: New Constructs, LLC

Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings

Figure 4: Separating the Best Mutual Funds from the Worst Mutual Funds

Image Source: New Constructs, LLC

Sources: New Constructs, LLC and company filings

This article originally published on April 11, 2019.

Disclosure: David Trainer, Peter Apockotos, and Kyle Guske 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] Harvard Business School features the powerful impact of our research automation technology in the case New Constructs: Disrupting Fundamental Analysis with Robo-Analysts.

[2] Ernst & Young’s recent white paper “Getting ROIC Right” proves the superiority of our holdings research and analytics.