Equal Weight ETFs Introduce Sector Tilts

U.S. large-cap equal weight ETFs introduce sector tilts to a portfolio.

The Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF (RSP) is the oldest single-factor ETF available to investors, accreting $32.6 billion in assets under management since its 2003 inception. RSP is based on the S&P 500 Equal Weight Index, comprising all constituents in the S&P 500 but giving each an equal weight at quarterly rebalances.

Equal weight ETFs reduce concentration risk and offer more protection if a large company or sector experiences a downturn. This methodology tilts the index in favor of smaller-sized companies, effectively overweighting or underweighting certain sectors compared to the cap-weighted S&P 500.

The S&P 500 Equal Weight Index tilts toward industrials and real estate. Industrials are weighted 14% in the equal weight index versus 8% in the S&P 500, and equal weight gives real estate a 6% weight versus 3% in cap weight, as of February 28.

The two sectors most underweighted in RSP are information technology and communications services, which are weighted 15% and 4%, respectively, in the equal weight index. In comparison, the cap-weight S&P 500 weights information technology and communications services at 265 and 7%, respectively.

 Equal weight’s methodology of selling relative winners and buying relative losers adds factor tilts to a portfolio. As of the end of the third quarter, the S&P 500 Equal Weight Index tilts towards small size (47.8%), value (33.4%), and dividend (15.6%) compared to the S&P 500. It also has a tilt away from quality (-23.7%), low volatility (-6.0%), high beta (-4.5%), and momentum (-3.1%), according to S&P Dow Jones Indexes.

The Invesco ESG S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF (RSPE) offers the same methodology as RSP but implements a screen for ESG criteria. RSP and RSPE each charge 20 basis points.

For more news, information, and analysis, visit the Portfolio Strategies Channel.

Read more on ETFtrends.com.

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