Category: ETFs

  • Global Market Outlook Improves as Expected Returns See a Modest Rise

    The projected total return for the Global Market Index (GMI) continued its upward trend in July, marking another month of improved expectations. However, the long-term outlook remains below the index’s actual performance over the past decade, although the difference has gradually narrowed.

    GMI is a market-capitalization-weighted portfolio that combines major asset classes (excluding cash) through ETF-based proxies. The current projection is calculated as the average of three underlying valuation models.

    The latest forecast estimates an annualized return of 8.0%, slightly higher than last month’s projection. Despite the recent improvement, the expected return remains below the benchmark’s trailing 10-year annualized performance, which has been around 9.6%, though the gap has continued to shrink.

    Similar to recent updates, many components within GMI are still expected to deliver lower returns than their historical results over the previous decade. The largest gap remains in U.S. equities, where models suggest future performance may moderate compared with the strong returns seen historically, while still remaining positive.

    Overall, GMI’s long-term return outlook has improved but remains more conservative than its recent history, with projected annual returns of 8.0% compared with 9.6% over the past 10 years through July.

    Global market outlook with expected returns and spreads for asset classes.

    The Global Market Index (GMI) serves as a theoretical benchmark representing an “optimal” portfolio designed for the average investor with an unlimited investment horizon. While real-world investors face practical constraints, GMI provides a useful foundation for developing and adjusting asset allocation strategies based on individual goals, expectations, risk tolerance, and investment preferences. Historical data indicates that this passive benchmark has delivered competitive results compared with many active asset-allocation approaches, particularly after considering risk exposure, transaction costs, and taxes.

    However, the forecasts presented should be viewed with caution, as some or even all projections may differ from actual future outcomes. GMI’s overall forecast is generally expected to be more reliable than predictions for individual asset classes because combining multiple market forecasts can help reduce the impact of errors and volatility over time.

    These projections can also be used as a reference point for refining investment expectations. Investors may enhance the estimates by incorporating additional models, assumptions, and factors not included in the current framework. Portfolio strategies should ultimately be tailored to each investor’s specific circumstances, including risk capacity, investment horizon, and financial objectives.

    To provide historical context, GMI’s performance can be evaluated through its rolling 10-year annualized returns. Compared with U.S. stock and bond ETFs, the benchmark has maintained strong long-term results. As of the latest update, GMI delivered a 9.6% annualized return over the past decade, slightly lower than the previous month but still reflecting strong historical performance.

    The forecasts for the Global Market Index (GMI) are generated using three different models: Building Block (BB), Equilibrium (EQ), and Adjusted Equilibrium (ADJ). Each approach uses a different methodology to estimate future expected returns.

    Building Block (BB) Model:
    The Building Block model estimates future returns based on historical performance. It analyzes data from January 1998 onward, calculates each asset class’s historical risk premium, converts it into an annualized return estimate, and then adds an expected risk-free rate. The risk-free rate is based on the latest yield of the 10-year Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS), which represents the market’s estimate of a safe, inflation-adjusted return.

    Equilibrium (EQ) Model:
    The Equilibrium model estimates expected returns by focusing on risk rather than directly forecasting returns. Since risk metrics are generally considered more predictable than future returns, the model uses three key inputs:

    • The expected market price of risk, measured by the Sharpe ratio (the relationship between risk premium and volatility).
    • The expected volatility of each asset class within GMI.
    • The expected correlation between each asset class and the overall GMI portfolio.

    This approach first calculates expected risk premiums and then adds the risk-free rate to determine projected total returns.

    Adjusted Equilibrium (ADJ) Model:
    The ADJ model follows the same framework as the Equilibrium model but incorporates short-term momentum and long-term mean-reversion factors. Forecasts are adjusted based on current asset prices compared with their 12-month and 60-month moving averages.

    • When prices are significantly above their recent averages, expected returns are reduced.
    • When prices are below their historical averages, expected returns are increased.

    This adjustment reflects the idea that overvalued assets may experience weaker future returns, while undervalued assets may have stronger potential.

    Average (Avg):
    The average forecast represents the simple mean of the three models (BB, EQ, and ADJ) for each asset class. This combined estimate is used as GMI’s overall expected return projection.

    10-Year Return (10yr Ret):
    This metric shows the actual annualized total return achieved by each asset class over the previous 10 years up to the current reporting period, providing historical context for comparison.

    Spread:
    The spread measures the difference between the average forecast and the historical 10-year return. A negative spread indicates that future expected returns are below recent historical performance, while a positive spread suggests expectations are higher than past results.

  • War Has Shifted Market Leadership Back to Traditional Industries — But Will It Last?

    The conflict in Iran has reshaped expectations about which sectors will benefit or struggle in the U.S. stock market, steering investment toward energy, materials, and industrial companies. How long this shift in market leadership continues will largely depend on the war’s trajectory and duration. For now, however, traditional “old-economy” stocks have regained popularity among investors.

    Rising oil and natural gas prices have propelled energy stocks to the top of sector performance rankings. According to ETF data through yesterday’s close (March 4), the Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund has climbed more than 25% so far this year. In comparison, the broader market, represented by the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust, has delivered almost no growth, posting only a modest gain of about 0.5% in 2026.

    Materials and industrial stocks rank a distant second and third in sector performance this year, followed by consumer staples, utilities, and real estate. Most of the other sectors are either hovering around flat levels or showing losses. Financials have performed the worst so far, declining about 6% since the start of the year.

    However, this shift in investor sentiment may not last long, depending on how the conflict develops. Many analysts believe the war could end relatively soon. If that happens, today’s leading sectors might give up their gains as investors rotate back toward themes tied to artificial intelligence and the digital economy.

    That outcome remains uncertain. The joint U.S. and Israeli strike on Iran has already proven to be more than a swift, targeted operation. With the conflict now entering its fifth day, the chances of a near-term resolution appear increasingly slim.

    Both the United States and Israel have indicated publicly that the conflict could extend for several weeks and may even become a prolonged war. On Wednesday, senior Pentagon officials cautioned that the situation could evolve into a longer confrontation, stressing that the fighting is “far from over.” U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth suggested the conflict might continue for up to eight weeks.

    A senior Israeli military officer echoed this view, noting that preparations are being made for a conflict that could last several weeks.

    How long the war continues will be a crucial factor shaping investor risk appetite and the direction of financial markets. According to Rick de los Reyes, a sector portfolio manager at T. Rowe Price, if disruptions prove brief, past experience shows that price spikes driven by geopolitical tensions often fade once uncertainty subsides. However, if production or exports are disrupted for an extended period, it could create a genuine supply shock with significant consequences for inflation, interest rate expectations, and global economic growth.

    As a result, the outlook for inflation, economic activity, interest rates, and which sectors lead or lag in markets remains highly uncertain. For now, the only clear reality is that no one knows how the conflict will develop or where it will ultimately lead. While several scenarios appear plausible on paper, the eventual outcome will likely challenge many of today’s predictions once the fighting ends.

    Sources: James Picerno

  • Why Prediction Markets Pose a Threat to Thematic ETF Providers

    Trump has effectively set off a regime change in Venezuela. The Monroe Doctrine has suddenly become relevant again. A special forces mission in Caracas plays across social media, Nicolás Maduro is taken into U.S. custody to face trial, and Washington declares it will run the country temporarily. No lives are lost. Global attention immediately focuses on Venezuela’s massive oil reserves, drawing in major energy companies.

    Overnight, ETFs respond predictably. Defense-related funds soar, while oil services ETFs rally on expectations of rebuilding, drilling, and upgrading energy infrastructure.

    Initially, that seems reassuring for ETF providers. Thematic and sector-based strategies still appear to “work.” Despite elevated fees, retail investors’ chronically bad timing, and the tendency for funds to debut right at the top of market themes, money still pours in when major geopolitical shocks occur.

    But here’s the difficult reality. By 2026, issuers who depend on thematic ETFs will face a much tougher landscape. Not because their products stop being relevant, but because a newer, more direct alternative is quietly overtaking them: Prediction markets.

    I say this frankly as someone inside the ETF business who is seeing investor habits evolve in real time, particularly among those under 30. Across social platforms, younger millennials and Gen Z investors are bypassing thematic ETFs entirely and placing their macro bets through prediction markets instead.

    Understanding Prediction Markets

    A prediction market is a marketplace where people buy and sell contracts based on the outcome of a clearly defined event. These contracts usually pay out either $1 if the event happens or $0 if it doesn’t. Their prices move beforehand as expectations change.

    Polymarket and Kalshi are currently two of the biggest platforms. Although their legal frameworks and back-end systems vary, they function in much the same way. Users can trade contracts on issues such as whether a government decision will be made, if interest rates will be reduced by a set deadline, or whether a geopolitical conflict will intensify. When the result is known, the contracts settle automatically.

    Most of these platforms operate with or alongside crypto, enabling fast account setup, funding, and settlement. More significantly, they remove extra layers of indirection. Instead of buying securities that represent a theme, users wager directly on the outcome of the event itself.

    Why Prediction Markets Could Undermine Thematic ETFs

    Prediction markets react much more aggressively to fresh information. When a development raises the likelihood of a given outcome, contract prices can jump by double digits within moments. That speed and sensitivity is a major draw for investors.

    In the Venezuela scenario, markets tied to potential U.S. intervention rallied far more dramatically than any defense or energy-themed ETF—even those offering multiple layers of leverage. ETFs spread exposure across many companies, balance sheets, and indirect impacts. Prediction markets offer pure exposure to a single event.

    Thematic ETF investing, by contrast, requires multiple steps of inference. You begin with a headline. You estimate which sectors might benefit. You choose the companies with the most relevant exposure. You locate an ETF with a reasonable basket, verify fees and trading volume, and then hope the broader market validates your thesis.

    Prediction markets compress that whole decision chain into a single action. You find the contract and place your bet. The outcome may be all-or-nothing, and the pricing is constantly arbitraged, but the simplicity is the appeal. They make sense instantly. Gen Z especially gravitates toward speed, transparency, and the freedom to get in and out of a position without digging through fund disclosures, holdings breakdowns, or factor metrics.

    The Outlook for Thematic ETF Strategies

    This isn’t a death notice for the category. I don’t believe sector ETFs are disappearing. Low-cost, market-cap sector funds—especially those priced below 10 basis points and spanning the 11 GICS sectors—will continue to serve as essential asset-allocation building blocks.

    Major thematic ETFs should also endure. Products with over $1 billion in assets have the size, trading depth, and embedded capital gains that tend to keep investors from exiting. Momentum still works in their favor.

    Where the real pressure shows up is at the edges. Smaller thematic products—particularly those with less than $50 million, along with brand-new funds launched to chase the latest storyline—are entering a very tough competitive landscape. Their rivals are no longer just other ETFs. They’re up against prediction markets that provide quicker, simpler, and more emotionally direct ways to express a macro belief.

    If you’re running an ETF business, now might be the moment to tap the brakes. The old playbook—rolling out a stream of hyper-niche thematic funds and hoping a few gain traction—looks much less sustainable in 2026. With retail investors tiring out, fees getting squeezed, and prediction markets gaining momentum, the “launch everything and see what works” model is hitting some real limits.

    Sources: Investing