10 Great Tech ETFs to Buy Now
Aug. 31, 2018
Most investors are fascinated with tech stocks. And why not? The information technology segment is the largest group within the S&P 500 index, with $9.8 trillion of the benchmark’s overall $46.6 trillion in market cap – good for more than 20 percent of its value.
Whether its mega corporations like Apple (ticker: AAPL) or Amazon.com (AMZN) or small upstarts in emerging fields like cybersecurity and cloud computing, there’s always a big story somewhere in tech. There are a host of technology-focused ETFs out there, including both broad-based funds for diversified investors and tactical funds for those looking to play a more focused slice of the sector.
1. Technology Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLK). This broad technology ETF is one of the most popular ways to play the sector among all ETFs, with a massive $22 billion under management. Including both the technology and telecom segments of the S&P 500, the 75 components are a who’s who list of the industry with the top of the list including Apple, Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) and Facebook (FB).
Keep in mind, however, that this fund is weighted heavily toward Apple, which represents a staggering 16 percent of the portfolio. This bias is good when big stocks like these are doing well, but can be risky if things take a turn for the worse.
2. Vanguard Information Technology ETF (VGT). Right beside the XLK is this Vanguard technology sector play that consists mostly of the same stocks, and also boasts more than $20 billion in total assets. However, there are a few subtle differences in the makeup of this fund – such as a more robust list of about 350 picks and the inclusion of payments processors Visa (V) and MasterCard (MA) in the top seven holdings.
And as is typical of a Vanguard fund, the expenses are dirt-cheap at just 0.1 percent annually, or $10 on every $10,000 invested. That’s a small price to pay for a one-stop shop. – Jeff Reeves
Click here to continue.

FYI: Vanguard is probably best known for their low-cost mutual funds and ETFs, but its robo-advisor service is earning superlatives as well.
Vanguard’s Personal Advisor Services tops the first edition of “The Robo Ranking,” a report released this week by Martinsville, N.J.-based Backend Benchmarking, the publishers of “The Robo Report.” Like “The Robo Report,” the ranking incorporates the researchers’ real-time performance analysis of roboadvisor portfolios.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/new-ranking-finds-that-vanguard-s-robo-rules-the-roost-40582.html?print
The Robo Report:
http://webreprints.djreprints.com/4417810789355.pdf

All the responses have been informative and fun. My real concern is that there are discrepancies in the MFO tools. I knew that FMIJX had recently reopened. After all the FMI funds website said so. My concern is that MFO Multisearch tool did not reflect this. Equally concerning was 2 different risk levels given for MAPOX. I'm especially concerned if level 5 risk is the true MFO opinion rather than 3 because I am invested in MAPOX. Such a high risk for a hybrid stock/bond fund is too extreme for me.

Our American Funds AMCPX is also up ~13% for the year. Top 5 holding categories:
Information Technology 26.13%
Health Care 22.75%
Consumer Discretionary 18.83%
Industrials 11.10%
Energy 8.61%
Top 10 Holdings- nice spread of Health & Tech, not super-FAANG:
NFLX Netflix Inc 4.70%
ABBV AbbVie Inc 2.59%
UNH UnitedHealth Group 2.27%
EOG EOG Resources Inc 2.26%
AMZN Amazon.com Inc 2.15%
ABT Abbott Laboratories 2.08%
MSFT Microsoft Corp 2.01%
AMG Amgen In 1.80%
TMO Thermo Fisher Scient... 1.77%
ACN Accenture PLC A 1.60%

@MFO Members: MGGPX has slipped a little the last three months, however; since inception the fund has had excellent performance. YTD the fund is up 13.64% which is in the 6th percentile of its bogey, World Stock Funds. I highly recommend this fund.
Regards,
Ted
1yr. 25.33% 4th percentile
3yr. 21.61% 1st percentile
5yr. 22.95% 1st percentile

Clearly. Trying to imagine why you would charge such a thing. Guess you have not studied in detail its changing fortunes the last few years. 5.5y ago DS mentioned its defensive stance to an extent (http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2013/03/seafarer-overseas-growth-income-sfgix/) but not more recently (https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2015/05/seafarer-overseas-growth-income-sfgixsigix-may-2015/). See also its M* star changes over time.
In any case it invests in EM; who would think "philosophy should protect capital in down markets" of any such vehicle?
It is fascinating to me to read that investments which do not pan out, or not quickly enough, are somehow the result of defocusing, as though effort and will and hard thinking and other notionally causal behaviors can and will preclude outcomes like @MikeM quoted. That's why I wondered if he doubled down on those overreacted-to stocks.
I have been reading Foster for years, back to Matthews, interesting guy. But some months, and longer, the bear eats you.

Harbor is saying that it will realize all gains in the portfolio this year. If all gains are realized, any attempt to optimize by selling lowest gain shares first would be pointless.
Still, I agree that the vast majority if not all of the net cap gains realized will be long term. That's for a few reasons:
- Very low turnover (13%), so on average, investments have been held for 4 years. Think of a portfolio filled with investments held 8 years then sold; half will be under 4 years old at the moment, half more. In any case, very few holdings owned for under a year.
- Net losses this year; YTD performance -2.73%. So holdings purchased this year may easily have dropped in value; at least enough so that short term losses should wipe out any short term gains.
- New management building a new portfolio - it's very unlikely that the new management is buying securities now just to dump within the fiscal year. They're not about to generate additional short term gains with their own purchases.
Here's the source for M*'s estimated 38% distribution.
https://www.harborfunds.com/HIF_manager_change_QA.htm#7
It's worth keeping in mind the dollar amount of the expected distribution, more so than the percentage. Harbor estimates that $9B will be distributed in cap gains: $4.5B already recognized, and nearly all of the $4.5B unrealized gains are expected to be realized.
The current AUM of the fund is $20.8B, so that comes out to 9/20.8 = 43%. (This is just slightly higher than the 41% one gets by taking Harbor's high end distribution of $27 and dividing by the current NAV of $64.94.)
So watch that AUM. As it drops (people sell), the $9B won't change, but the denominator will get smaller and smaller.

According to the Premium Multisearch tool MAPOX's risk level is 5. But according to the Miraculous Multisearch on the MFO (non premium) site the MAPOX risk is 3. According to the premium site FMIJX is closed. ("Open: No") but according to FMI's website this fund is open to new investors. Any thoughts about this?

I see no evidence that total assets is the culprit for SFGIX under-performance. 2.2B is not at all to high for an EM fund concentrated on large caps. Look at the T. Rowe Price fund, PREMX. It has 5.5B in assets. 2.2B for a large cap fund should not be a problem IMHO.
Read what Foster says in his reviews. He is pretty honest about the funds short-falls and under-performance. Basically, wrong bets on stock picks, countries and sectors. He talks about how he thought he positioned the fund for downside protection - and it didn't pan out. Quite honest.

The Fund’s poor performance relative to the benchmark stemmed from several holdings that produced acceptable financial results, but which disappointed some segment of investors (but not Seafarer). Many of these companies operate in the information technology sector, either in software or manufacturing: Venture of Singapore (a contract manufacturer of high-end electronic devices); TOTVS of Brazil (a commercial software company); and Delta of Taiwan (a diversified manufacturer of electronic systems and components). These three companies saw their share prices slump sharply in response to passable (but apparently disappointing) results. In all three cases, I believe the market’s response was grossly over-exaggerated.

https://www.seafarerfunds.com/funds/ogi/portfolio-review#performance-review

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Is it that Harbor should have fired Castegren in 2000, since that's the last good year you identify? In that case, perhaps it was Ivy International Growth (now Ivy Global Growth) IVINX that had the right idea. Ivy induced Castegren to quit in 2000 by refusing to close its fund.
More likely, it was Ivy, not Northern Cross that had no succession plan. I don't believe Ivy was expecting Castegren to quit. It plunked Reilly in as manager for 1.5 years, followed by McLachan for another year. Only then did it settle on a long term manager with Mengel. In those intevening couple of years, IVINX returned -17.26% (2000), -21.03% (2001), and -20.96% (2002).
In comparison, HAINX had returns of -4.97% (2000), -12.25% (2001), and -6.38% (2002).
For a frame of reference, TEMFX had returns of -3.67% (2000), -7.92% (2001), -8.64% (2002).
Northern Cross had a succession plan in place. For almost two years before Castegren died, starting Feb 2009, Castegren was joined by Ducrest, LaTorre, and Wendell. For the two years of overlap, and the two years following, HAINX put up good to very good numbers: 17th percentile (2009), 31st percentile (2010), 17th percentile (2011), 17th percentile (2012).
Those managers did not maintain their fine performance. However, the succession was planned and the fund continued to perform well through the transition.
The lesson to be learned is when a fund does not have a smooth succession plan (successful or otherwise), you may expect a portfolio overhaul and large amounts of cap gains realized. Harbor just fired Northern Cross. That's what caused the gains to be realized.

FYI: Below is a look at each country’s percentage of total world stock market capitalization based on Bloomberg indices. (We only include the 35 largest countries by market cap in the table.)
For each country, we show its current percentage of world market cap, where it stood on Election Day 2016, and where it stood ten years ago.
Notably, the US has just recently eclipsed the 40% level for the first time since 2005. At the moment, the US stock market makes up 40.01% of world stock market capitalization. Given dollar strength, gains in US equities, and declines in most international equity markets recently, it’s no surprise that this reading is at multi-year highs.
As the US’ share of world market cap has gone up, China’s share has taken the biggest hit. On Election Day 2016, the US made up 36.53% of world market cap, while China made up 10.21%. Since Election Day, the US has gained 3.48 percentage points, while China has lost 2.7 percentage points.
China’s drop has actually moved it into the third place ranking behind Japan, which currently makes up 7.59% of world stock market cap.
Behind the US, Japan, and China ranks Hong Kong (6.51%), the UK (4.49%), France (3.23%), Germany (2.91%), and India (2.83%).
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bespokepremium.com/think-big-blog/us-as-of-world-stock-market-cap-tops-40-again/

FYI: Saturday's ABC World News aired an investment snippet on how Americans should prepare for retirement. The feature lasted just under a minute and a half.
Consequently, there was no time to explain the numbers. Such are mass communications, and you will find no protest from me. This column skips plenty of details itself. However, I do have enough room to explore the segment's most dramatic claim: That somebody who begins investing at age 23 can retire with $1 million by investing $14 daily into a "low-cost S&P 500 fund."
Regards,
Ted
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/880879/can-you-accumulate-1-million-saving-14-per-day.html
ABC News Article:
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=86992&page=1

FYI: -ProShares, a premier provider of ETFs, today announced that its S&P 500 Ex-Technology ETF (SPXT) will be changing its index effective on or about September 21, 2018.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180827005589/en/ProShares-SP-500-Ex-Technology-ETF-Change-Index

When you get to three dots, watch out for ghosts ...
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/some-three-dot-journalism-in-honor-of-herb-caen/252489/

Thanks again @davidmoran
Re tutorial (noun) - Cambridge Dictionary
1. a period of study with a tutor involving one student or a small group
2. a period of study with a tutor and a small group of students
3. IT a document or website on a computer that shows you how to use a product in a series of easy stages:
Albeit, you used the adverb form of the word (which is rarely used). So to tie things together:
tutorially: in the manner of a tutorial (Collins Dictionary)
Here’s how M* describes Ms. Benz’s role and purpose: “Morningstar director of personal finance Christine Benz has developed a series of hypothetical portfolios for savers and retirees. These portfolios are offered as general examples for investors' reference. These portfolios are not personalized recommendations, nor are they investable products offered by Morningstar.”
Hope I’m not nit-picking. Just trying to understand why I should be particularly interested in her advice over, say, someone like Ol’Skeet here who does a great job explaining his long standing bucket approach or the folks at T. Rowe Price who present models by example. (ie - I can take apart a given target date retirement fund designed by them and visualize how much they allocate to different funds or sectors.) I’m not saying Christine Benz’s is bad advice. Just asking why she deserves more credence than someone else who’s equally (possibly more) experienced?
Nothing in Benz’s listed educational background (below) suggests any type of financial training or certification. All I see there is political science and East European history. Also, I’ve never thought of M* as an advisory firm. Always thought their forte was in statistical analysis of fund data. (But, I’ll admit to rarely looking at them.)
Christine Benz’s Experience (Linkedin) https://www.linkedin.com/in/christine-benz-b83b523/
Director of Personal Finance
Morningstar, Inc.
2008 – Present (10 years)
Director of Mutual Fund Analysis
Morningstar, Inc.
February 2006 – March 2008 (2 years 2 months)
Education
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
BA, Political Science, Russian and East European Studies
Lyons Township High School
From Amazon https://www.amazon.com/Christine-Benz/e/B002PICOLS
“Christine (Benz) holds a bachelor's degree in political science and Russian/East European studies from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She lives in the Chicago suburbs with her husband, Greg. She is an avid cook, a political junkie, and a long-suffering Chicago Cubs fan.”

https://www.morningstar.com/content/morningstarcom/en_us/model-portfolios.html
https://www.linkedin.com/in/christine-benz-b83b523/
dir of personal finance at M*, for some years

My earlier goof. Glanced at the thread on the way out the door and assumed “Christine” was a newbie here seeking advice. Didn’t realize she’s actually a journalist spewing out model portfolios. I’d be very careful criticizing the investment choices of any one individual. Only they really understand their situation and temperament.
But if folks find it either instructive or amusing to argue about model portfolios that’s fine for me. Go for it. Few of us will be here in 40 years to judge who had it right. I used to look at them for ideas 20-30 years back seeking to chart my own course. Little value or interest now to someone like me (and many others here) who’ve been at this for the past 50 years of their life. Indeed, most of the TRP funds being touted here didn’t even exist 50 years ago.
Regards

@MFO Members: In my opinion, MCG will continue to outperform MCV as it has for the last five year.
Regards,
Ted
MVG:
YTD = 12.73%
3yrs. =15.38%
5yrs. = 12.25%
MCV:
YTD=4.04%
3yrs=12.97%
5yrs=9.80%
Source M*

FYI: (Christine Benz's Aggressive T. Rowe Price Retirement Saver Portfolio
Anticipated Time Horizon to Retirement: 40 years )
20%: T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth (PRDGX)
15%: T. Rowe Price Equity Index 500 (PREIX)
10%: T. Rowe Price New America Growth (PRWAX)
10%: T. Rowe Price Small-Cap Value (PRSVX)
35%: T. Rowe Price Overseas Stock
5%: T. Rowe Price New Income (PRCIX)
5%: T. Rowe Price Real Assets (PRAFX)
Performance
3-Year Annualized Return: 11.93
( The Linkster's Aggressive T. Rowe Price Retirement Saver Portfolio
Anticipated Time Horizon to Retirement: 40 years )
20%: T. Rowe Price New America Growth (PRWAX)
20% T. Rowe Price Equity Index 500 (PREIX)
20% T. Rowe Price Global Technology Fund (PRGTX)
20% T.Rowe Price Health Sciences Fund (PRHSX)
20% T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth Fund (TRBCX)
Performance
3-Year Annualized Return: 19.82
The Entire Article:
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/880485/how-our-t-rowe-price-retirement-saver-portfolios-h.html

As @Ted and I agree with tech. and health exposure.
My particular watch for these two areas is that in the event of a major equity correction; these 2 sectors, as well as the other high fliers in growth will be some of the areas to get picked on the most for profit taking. The big money will come out of the best return areas over the past several years, yes? I'm not concerned at this time; just my open thought here.
Also, dependent upon one's available choices at their vendor; one can decide whether to have broad exposure to health or more narrow sectors. Review the holdings and performance carefully.
Health and tech. are two sectors where I don't regard expense ratios as a particular "evil". I'll guess the average ER for a managed fund is .7%. One can pay this much, too; for a passive managed etf.
Also note that one may already have 15% - 30% exposure to these 2 sectors via an equity growth fund or more broad based equity fund. Perhaps this is your comfort level.
---EXAMPLE: ITOT, I-shares, U.S. equity, broad
--- info tech. = 25%
--- health = 14%
--- finance = 14%
--- telecom = 1.8%
I've not looked deeper into all holdings with this etf; but included finance and telecom; as there may be additional tech. related inside these areas, too.
Note: To the etf list below, an OMG moment. The current best performance from this list is both a small cap and health, too. A great place to be this year, at this point in time; at least from the year's beginning.
In addition to Ted's active fund list, is this list for 47 health related etfs. I set this link with YTD return, but not sure how it will load here or for your use.
Do your homework in the healthcare sector and good fortune, as there are lots of choices.
We remain 50% of total equity exposure with health and tech.
Regards,
Catch