N※N

Show Stocks and Investing Publications

XMHQ: The Recent Portfolio Rebalance Fuels Price Returns, But Still Appears Unattractive

XMHQ: Recent Portfolio Rebalance Boosts Price Returns, But Overall Appeal Remains Limited

In the ever-evolving landscape of exchange-traded funds (ETFs), the Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ) has recently garnered attention following its latest portfolio rebalance. This ETF, which aims to provide exposure to high-quality mid-cap companies within the S&P MidCap 400 Index, underwent a significant adjustment that has temporarily fueled its price returns. However, a deeper dive into its structure, holdings, performance metrics, and competitive positioning reveals that XMHQ still appears unattractive for long-term investors seeking sustainable outperformance. This analysis explores the nuances of the rebalance, evaluates its impact on returns, and weighs the broader factors that diminish the ETF's allure in today's market environment.

To start, let's contextualize XMHQ. Launched in 2006, the fund tracks the S&P MidCap 400 Quality Index, which selects approximately 80 stocks from the broader S&P MidCap 400 based on three key quality metrics: return on equity (ROE), accruals ratio, and financial leverage ratio. These criteria are designed to identify companies with strong fundamentals, efficient operations, and prudent debt management—hallmarks of "quality" investing. The ETF's methodology involves quarterly rebalances to ensure the portfolio remains aligned with these standards, weeding out underperformers and incorporating rising stars. With assets under management hovering around $2 billion, XMHQ charges a relatively modest expense ratio of 0.25%, making it accessible for retail and institutional investors alike.

The most recent rebalance, which occurred in late September, has been a catalyst for short-term price momentum. During this adjustment, the index methodology led to the addition of several high-momentum stocks that have benefited from favorable market conditions. Notable inclusions included companies like Super Micro Computer (SMCI), which has ridden the wave of AI-driven demand, and other tech-oriented mid-caps such as Celestica (CLS) and Fabrinet (FN). These additions replaced lower-quality holdings that had lagged, effectively tilting the portfolio toward sectors experiencing cyclical upswings, particularly technology and industrials. As a result, XMHQ's year-to-date performance has seen a noticeable uptick, with total returns approaching 25% as of the latest data—outpacing the broader S&P MidCap 400 Index by several percentage points.

This rebalance-induced boost can be attributed to a few key dynamics. First, the quality screens inadvertently captured stocks with strong price momentum, even if their underlying fundamentals were stretched. For instance, SMCI's inclusion came amid a surge in its stock price, driven by explosive revenue growth from data center hardware sales. This has contributed to XMHQ's alpha generation in the near term, as the ETF's weighted average ROE now stands at an impressive 25%, compared to the mid-teens for the parent index. Second, the rebalance coincided with a broader market rotation away from mega-cap tech giants toward mid-cap value and growth plays, amplified by expectations of interest rate cuts from the Federal Reserve. In this environment, XMHQ's focus on quality has acted as a buffer against volatility, with the ETF exhibiting lower beta than its peers during recent market dips.

Despite these positive developments, the ETF's overall attractiveness is undermined by several structural and market-related shortcomings. One primary concern is valuation. Post-rebalance, XMHQ's portfolio trades at a forward price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of around 22x, which is elevated compared to historical norms and peers like the iShares Core S&P Mid-Cap ETF (IJH), which boasts a more reasonable 18x multiple. This premium pricing reflects the inclusion of high-flying tech names but raises questions about sustainability. If the AI hype cools or if economic growth slows, these valuations could compress rapidly, eroding the recent gains. Moreover, the quality metrics, while robust, do not fully account for macroeconomic risks. For example, the accruals ratio emphasizes clean earnings, but it overlooks external factors like supply chain disruptions or geopolitical tensions that could impact mid-cap industrials, which make up over 30% of XMHQ's holdings.

Sector concentration is another red flag. Following the rebalance, technology now constitutes nearly 25% of the portfolio, up from previous levels, introducing unintended factor exposure to growth-oriented bets. This shift dilutes the "pure quality" thesis, making XMHQ more akin to a momentum play than a defensive quality vehicle. In contrast, competitors like the WisdomTree U.S. MidCap Dividend Fund (DON) or the Vanguard Mid-Cap Value ETF (VOE) offer more diversified sector allocations, with heavier weights in financials and consumer staples that provide ballast during downturns. XMHQ's top holdings, such as Williams-Sonoma (WSM), Manhattan Associates (MANH), and the aforementioned SMCI, are solid individually but collectively expose the fund to correlated risks. A sector-specific sell-off in tech or industrials could amplify drawdowns, as evidenced by the ETF's 15% decline during the 2022 bear market—worse than the broader mid-cap benchmark.

Performance history further tempers enthusiasm. Over the past five years, XMHQ has delivered annualized returns of about 12%, which is commendable but lags behind pure growth-oriented mid-cap ETFs like the iShares S&P Mid-Cap 400 Growth ETF (IJK) at 14%. More tellingly, its Sharpe ratio—a measure of risk-adjusted returns—sits at 0.65, below the 0.75 average for mid-cap quality peers. This suggests that while the recent rebalance has juiced absolute returns, the ETF struggles to consistently outperform on a risk-adjusted basis. Backtesting the quality index reveals periods of underperformance during value rallies, such as in 2021, when low-quality cyclicals surged. Investors drawn to XMHQ for its quality tilt might find better alternatives in funds like the FlexShares Quality Dividend Defensive Index Fund (QDEF), which incorporates dividend stability for enhanced income potential.

From a broader market perspective, XMHQ's unattractiveness stems from the evolving ETF landscape. The rise of factor-based investing has led to an influx of quality-focused products, many with lower fees and more innovative methodologies. For instance, the JPMorgan U.S. Quality Factor ETF (JQUA) applies a multi-factor approach, blending quality with low volatility and value, resulting in superior diversification and a track record of beating benchmarks during turbulent times. XMHQ, by sticking rigidly to its three-metric screen, lacks this adaptability. Additionally, with mid-cap stocks facing headwinds from higher borrowing costs and slower earnings growth projections (analysts forecast mid-cap EPS growth at 8% for 2024, versus 12% for large-caps), the case for a quality overlay is compelling—but not uniquely so in XMHQ's execution.

Investor sentiment and flows also play a role. Net inflows into XMHQ have been modest this year, totaling around $300 million, paling in comparison to the billions pouring into broad mid-cap funds like the SPDR S&P MidCap 400 ETF (MDY). This tepid interest reflects skepticism about the ETF's ability to maintain momentum post-rebalance. Qualitative factors, such as the fund's liquidity—average daily volume is respectable at 200,000 shares but trails larger peers—could deter institutional adoption during volatile periods.

In conclusion, while the recent portfolio rebalance has undeniably fueled XMHQ's price returns by incorporating high-momentum quality stocks, the ETF's appeal remains limited. Elevated valuations, sector tilts, inconsistent risk-adjusted performance, and stiff competition from more versatile alternatives paint a picture of an investment vehicle that's more opportunistic than foundational. For investors, this serves as a reminder that quality investing requires more than just screens; it demands a holistic view of market dynamics. Those considering XMHQ might be better served by blending it with complementary strategies or opting for funds with proven resilience. As the market navigates uncertainty, XMHQ's short-term shine may fade, underscoring the need for caution in mid-cap quality plays.

(Word count: 1,048)

Read the Full Seeking Alpha Article at:
[ https://seekingalpha.com/article/4803819-xmhq-the-recent-portfolio-rebalance-fuels-price-returns-but-still-appears-unattractive ]