XLB — XLB | S&P 500 Materials Sector ETF 13F holdings and portfolio analysis

BereitXLB | S&P 500 Materials Sector ETF · Michael Riley

Melden Sie sich an, um einen neuen Zweig aus dem ausgewählten Plan zu klonen und dann im neuen Zweig weiter zu optimieren.

OFFIZIELL
BENUTZERZWEIGE
Zurück zu den Fonds

Baseline

Analyse-Nachrichten
Zweig:
Baselinetested
Strategie-Q&A-Referenz3 Referenz-Q&A

Vorbereitete Q&A zu diesem Fonds. Als Referenzkontext für Ihre eigene Analyse verwenden.

baseline13FChat AI
What does directly following the disclosed baseline portfolio expose an investor to?

Directly following the baseline exposes an investor to a top-heavy Materials portfolio with benchmark-like beta but weaker alpha. The strategy artifact shows top5 concentration of 37.48%, top10 of 59.94%, and sectorWeights of 99.98% Materials. LIN alone is 13.84%, followed by NEM 7.57%, CRH 5.81%, SHW 5.19%, and FCX 5.07%. Performance risk is not trivial: annualizedReturn is 8.34%, but alpha is -3.64, sharpe is 0.49, and maxDrawdown is -39.39%. Risk notes also highlight implementation sensitivity from 3,236 trades and occasional turnover spikes up to 88.7% in a month. So the baseline is essentially a concentrated sector bet with returns heavily dependent on a few Materials names rather than broad diversification.

↳Show me how much concentration risk would fall if the top 10 holdings were capped or equal-weighted within the baseline universe.
baseline13FChat AI
Which recent baseline periods best explain the risk-return trade-off?

Recent baseline periods show the trade-off clearly: occasional strong upside, but repeated benchmark-relative setbacks during weak Materials months. On the positive side, 2025-07 returned 4.92% versus SPY 2.05%, and 2025-10 returned 3.92% versus SPY 0.20%. But those gains were offset by sharper relative losses in 2025-08 at -2.39% versus SPY +3.66% (-6.04 pts excess) and 2025-09 at -3.90% versus SPY +2.05% (-5.95 pts excess). Turnover also rose during several choppy stretches: 2025-03 turnover was 22.11%, 2025-11 was 12.08%, and 2025-12 was 14.13%. Those periods help explain why the baseline still ended with negative alpha despite decent absolute return: the sector concentration occasionally works well, but weak months versus SPY are too deep and too frequent.

↳Plot the baseline’s recent monthly excess returns and turnover together so I can see whether higher trading activity actually improved results.
baseline13FChat AI
What should a user inspect next before deciding whether the baseline is acceptable?

A user should inspect three things next: concentration by name, the source of drawdown, and whether recent changes meaningfully alter the thesis. First, the baseline top10 is 59.94% and top20 is 89.19%, so the investor needs to be comfortable with a few names driving most outcomes. Second, the maxDrawdown of -39.39% and recoveryDays of 111 suggest this is not a low-stress sector allocation even though beta is only 0.96. Third, recentChanges show a meaningful 5.81% new position in CRH, an exit from DOW (-2.38 pts), and trims to LIN, SHW, ECL, NUE, and VMC. If those changes shift the mix toward different commodity or construction exposures, the baseline may behave differently from prior periods despite unchanged headline concentration.

↳Walk me through the baseline’s current top holdings, what drove the historical drawdown, and whether CRH replacing DOW changes the portfolio’s risk profile.
Melden Sie sich an, um mit der KI über Strategien, Positionen und Risiken dieses Fonds zu sprechen.
Anmelden, um zu chatten…
Verweisen Sie auf eine beliebige Strategie oder einen Datenpunkt auf dieser Seite.