Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

Comments

  • edited February 25
    Thought it was another gimmick at first, but this one seems legit, especially with a low 0.11% expense ratio. Too often these ESG funds take advantage of good-intentioned investors to gouge them price wise which seems hypocritical to their entire mission. But this one has a reasonable mission, eliminate the worst corporate actors from the portfolio while trying to change or improve the remaining ones through shareholder activism: https://humankind.co/mission
    How We Create Impact
    Investors seeking to promote more responsible corporate behavior can wield power in two ways:

    a) By investing more money in and providing more capital to companies that create greater positive value for humanity

    b) By utilizing the rights associated with stock ownership to promote company policies that positively impact humanity

    At Humankind Investments we aim to do both of those things for you. We do the socially responsible research, so you don't have to. Then we invest in the companies that, according to our research, offer the greatest potential returns for humanity and our clients. We also keep track of opportunities to use your corporate voting power to positively influence company policy.

    We believe that an investment made through us is an investment made in your and humanity’s future.
  • One of the individuals used to work at Vanguard.

    James Katz - Chief Executive Officer and Chief Compliance Officer, Humankind Investments LLC (since 2019); Quantitative Equity Analyst, Data Scientist, Vanguard (2016-2018)
  • List of holdings- all 16 pages- that's a lot of companies to being assessing.

    https://devxuryre6186.cloudfront.net/holdings.pdf
  • You're right. I would imagine though they might employ an outside ESG ratings service to do their initial ESG assessment. How much of this labor can be outsourced and how much that will cost are interesting questions.
  • edited February 25
    One might expect that this etf will obtain investment flows. Will the etf find the "Robinhood" run? Fidelity indicates at this time, that options are not available. I consider this a positive for a somewhat more normal (whatever normal is today for the traders) flow of investment monies.


    Humankind, home page overview including prospectus.
  • Hard pass for me.

    Half of these positions are in < 50 lots, and many are in the single digits. There is no reason for a fund to hold 2 ... TWO ... shares of something unless it's to show what companies they like. IMO their holdings list is far too long & embarrassing for a fund at launch time. This reads like someone's SeekingAlpha watchlist.

    It seems woefully underpowered in terms of initial overall AUM, too.

  • The ETF launched a few days ago I believe. Unless you're an insurer with seed money for an ETF, initial assets/positions are usually like this. I'm not sure why that requires a "hard pass" in the future if it gains traction.

  • I'm quirky-- I would expect a fund to be better capitalized/positioned at launch.

    The ETF launched a few days ago I believe. Unless you're an insurer with seed money for an ETF, initial assets/positions are usually like this. I'm not sure why that requires a "hard pass" in the future if it gains traction.

  • edited February 25
    Large institutions often provide seed money, although that is not the case for some such as Vanguard, but even when the seed money is large asset-wise, that doesn't mean trading volumes of the ETF are high. The seed money could be from an institution--often insurers do this--that never or rarely trades its shares and just sits there in the ETF. Ultimately trading volume and bid-ask spreads matter more than assets under management for those who trade ETFs. Then again, for those who are buy and hold investors, assets under management and trading volumes really don't matter much. There could be some tracking error versus the index I suppose with a small asset base and too few shares of some companies in the index, but quants have become pretty good at optimizing that away via sampling. In other words, anyone looking for a long-term investment probably doesn't have too much to fear in this ETF, especially in a tax sheltered IRA account. In a taxable account there is a risk of a tiny ETF being liquidated and then having to pay capital gains taxes after the liquidation on appreciated shares.
  • I'll stick with ESGV in this market segment.
  • I like PRILX in the ESG fund space.
  • You make some fair points, I guess. Thanks Lewis.

    Large institutions often provide seed money, although that is not the case for some such as Vanguard, but even when the seed money is large asset-wise, that doesn't mean trading volumes of the ETF are high. The seed money could be from an institution--often insurers do this--that never or rarely trades its shares and just sits there in the ETF. Ultimately trading volume and bid-ask spreads matter more than assets under management for those who trade ETFs. Then again, for those who are buy and hold investors, assets under management and trading volumes really don't matter much. There could be some tracking error versus the index I suppose with a small asset base and too few shares of some companies in the index, but quants have become pretty good at optimizing that away via sampling. In other words, anyone looking for a long-term investment probably doesn't have too much to fear in this ETF, especially in a tax sheltered IRA account. In a taxable account there is a risk of a tiny ETF being liquidated and then having to pay capital gains taxes after the liquidation on appreciated shares.

Sign In or Register to comment.