Market Vectors Hard Assets Producers ETF Debuts
New ETF offers investors a slight twist on traditional commodity exposure.
New ETF offers investors a slight twist on traditional commodity exposure.
On September 3, the newest member of the Van Eck family of exchange-traded funds, Market Vectors-RVE Hard Assets Producers ETF (HAP), began trading on the AMEX. This fund--which levies a 0.65% expense ratio--is the first and only global hard assets ETF and is based on The Rogers-Van Eck Hard Assets Producers Index (^RVEI). That said, it's certainly not the first ETF that aims to capitalize on emerging-markets economies' voracious demand for commodities.
So, what makes this fund so different from the plethora of commodity-based ETFs already on the market?
Well, rather than weighting the fund by market cap (as many, if not most do), this fund is weighted by global consumption. What this means is that energy, while still on the high side, makes up less of the portfolio and agriculture receives a higher weight than in other commodity equity indexes. Also worth noting is that other commodity equity indexes typically do not include water and renewable energy (solar and wind), which this fund does. Sector exposures are as follows: Energy (40.3%), agriculture (30.5%), industrial metals (13.3%), precious metals (7.5%), paper & forest products (4.3%), and alternatives (4.1%).
Jim Rogers, the famed international investor who helped construct the index that the Market Vectors Hard Assets Producers ETF tracks, had this to say regarding the index's consumption based construction: "We are all consumers. Whether we're industrialists or simple people, we all consume [goods and services that are produced using real assets]. As consumers, we are more interested in what we consume than anything else. In the end, consumption is what makes the world go 'round. This index is designed to [represent] the cost of being alive around the world or the cost of doing business around the world."
Also, note that this ETF doesn't track the actual performance of the underlying commodities, but the performance of the companies engaged in the production and distribution of hard assets and related products and services. Bullish investors may view this as positive because during periods in which commodities experience price appreciation, this ETF should theoretically outperform the underlying commodities. For example, while the price of corn may increase rapidly due to increased demand or a shortfall in supply, the cost for a farmer to harvest his corn crop doesn't typically change dramatically from year to year. Thus, the farmer's bottom line grows at a much faster clip than the increase in the price of corn. Unfortunately, operating leverage cuts both ways and can lead to increased volatility.
We understand that some investors may prefer to tailor their own commodity exposure by using more focused commodity ETFs in unison (for example owning an energy ETF, alongside an agriculture ETF and a water-focused ETF). However, for some the Hard Assets Producers ETF might be a useful vehicle to help limit transaction costs due to its "one-stop shopping" exposure. Without question, commodities should have a place in every investor's portfolio in some shape or form. If for nothing else, commodity exposure can be viewed as a hedge against inflation.
So what are your first impressions of this new ETF? Does it have what it takes to take a bite out of the market shares of leading commodity-based ETFs like: iShares S&P North American Natural Resources (IGE), Materials Select Sector SPDR (XLB), iShares Dow Jones US Basic Materials (IYM), iShares S&P Global Materials (MXI), or Vanguard Materials ETF (VAW)? We'd love to hear what you think.
For more information about this new ETF, see the Fund Fact Sheet, Investment Case, and Prospectus.
Tell Us What You Think
Is Market Vectors Hard Assets Producers a better mouse trap for commodity exposure? Join the conversation in Morningstar Discuss.
ETFInvestor Newsletter | ||||
Let our new newsletter, Morningstar ETFInvestor, help you navigate the exciting and new world of exchange-traded funds. Each issue includes recommendations for commonsense ETF investing, | ETF spotlights, and critical data on 150 top ETFs. This one-year subscription consists of 12 monthly issues. Learn more. | |||
$149.00 for 12 Print Issues | $129 for 12 PDF Issues | |||
Transparency is how we protect the integrity of our work and keep empowering investors to achieve their goals and dreams. And we have unwavering standards for how we keep that integrity intact, from our research and data to our policies on content and your personal data.
We’d like to share more about how we work and what drives our day-to-day business.
We sell different types of products and services to both investment professionals
and individual investors. These products and services are usually sold through
license agreements or subscriptions. Our investment management business generates
asset-based fees, which are calculated as a percentage of assets under management.
We also sell both admissions and sponsorship packages for our investment conferences
and advertising on our websites and newsletters.
How we use your information depends on the product and service that you use and your relationship with us. We may use it to:
To learn more about how we handle and protect your data, visit our privacy center.
Maintaining independence and editorial freedom is essential to our mission of empowering investor success. We provide a platform for our authors to report on investments fairly, accurately, and from the investor’s point of view. We also respect individual opinions––they represent the unvarnished thinking of our people and exacting analysis of our research processes. Our authors can publish views that we may or may not agree with, but they show their work, distinguish facts from opinions, and make sure their analysis is clear and in no way misleading or deceptive.
To further protect the integrity of our editorial content, we keep a strict separation between our sales teams and authors to remove any pressure or influence on our analyses and research.
Read our editorial policy to learn more about our process.