News

We provide the latest news
from the world of economics and finance

Back
09 January
Should You Invest in the Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT)?

If you're interested in broad exposure to the Materials - Broad segment of the equity market, look no further than the Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT), a passively managed exchange traded fund launched on 10/21/2013.

While an excellent vehicle for long term investors, passively managed ETFs are a popular choice among institutional and retail investors due to their low costs, transparency, flexibility, and tax efficiency.

Sector ETFs are also funds of convenience, offering many ways to gain low risk and diversified exposure to a broad group of companies in particular sectors. Materials - Broad is one of the 16 broad Zacks sectors within the Zacks Industry classification. It is currently ranked 13, placing it in bottom 19%.

Index Details

The fund is sponsored by Fidelity. It has amassed assets over $475.99 million, making it one of the average sized ETFs attempting to match the performance of the Materials - Broad segment of the equity market. FMAT seeks to match the performance of the MSCI USA IMI Materials Index before fees and expenses.

The MSCI USA IMI Materials Index represents the performance of the materials sector in the U.S. equity market.

Costs

When considering an ETF's total return, expense ratios are an important factor, and cheaper funds can significantly outperform their more expensive counterparts in the long term if all other factors remain equal.

Annual operating expenses for this ETF are 0.08%, making it the least expensive product in the space.

It has a 12-month trailing dividend yield of 1.73%.

Sector Exposure and Top Holdings

Even though ETFs offer diversified exposure that minimizes single stock risk, investors should also look at the actual holdings inside the fund. Luckily, most ETFs are very transparent products that disclose their holdings on a daily basis.

Looking at individual holdings, Linde Plc Common Stock (LIN) accounts for about 16.43% of total assets, followed by Sherwin Williams Co/the Common Stock Usd1.0 (SHW) and Air Products + Chemicals Inc Common Stock Usd1.0 (APD).

The top 10 holdings account for about 51.75% of total assets under management.

Performance and Risk

So far this year, FMAT has lost about -1.35%, and was up about 8.19% in the last one year (as of 01/09/2024). During this past 52-week period, the fund has traded between $41.66 and $49.21.

The ETF has a beta of 1.14 and standard deviation of 20.71% for the trailing three-year period, making it a medium risk choice in the space. With about 117 holdings, it effectively diversifies company-specific risk.

Alternatives

Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF carries a Zacks ETF Rank of 3 (Hold), which is based on expected asset class return, expense ratio, and momentum, among other factors. Thus, FMAT is a good option for those seeking exposure to the Materials ETFs area of the market. Investors might also want to consider some other ETF options in the space.

Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLB) tracks Materials Select Sector Index and the FlexShares Morningstar Global Upstream Natural Resources ETF (GUNR) tracks Morningstar Global Upstream Natural Resources Index. Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF has $5.08 billion in assets, FlexShares Morningstar Global Upstream Natural Resources ETF has $6.85 billion. XLB has an expense ratio of 0.10% and GUNR charges 0.46%.

Bottom Line

To learn more about this product and other ETFs, screen for products that match your investment objectives and read articles on latest developments in the ETF investing universe, please visit Zacks ETF Center.

Want key ETF info delivered straight to your inbox?

Zacks’ free Fund Newsletter will brief you on top news and analysis, as well as top-performing ETFs, each week.

Get it free >>

Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report

To read this article on Zacks.com click here.

The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.