Bridges Capital Tactical ETF (BDGS) holdings & weights
Per-holding contribution · concentration · sector skew — a deep read
1758 identified stocks · net exposure / NAV 64.58%. Display weights are normalized to 100%; calculations retain original exposures without an additional leverage multiplier. Underlying allocation is estimated using IWM (2026-10-16). Cash and unallocated contracts are excluded from stock attribution.
Weight and calculation basis
1758 identified stocks · net exposure / NAV 64.58%. Display weights are normalized to 100%; calculations retain original exposures without an additional leverage multiplier. Underlying allocation is estimated using IWM (2026-10-16). Cash and unallocated contracts are excluded from stock attribution.
We have this ETF's holdings, but the prices for those particular listings are outside our quote coverage (currently Korea- and US-listed securities). So today's contribution and return are not computed — showing 0% would claim it did not move, which is a different statement. The holdings and weights below follow the calculation basis above.
Today's summary
Its top 10 holdings make up about 84.6% of the fund. The concentration index (HHI) is 3101 — High — concentrated, and the largest sector is Unclassified (61%). The higher the concentration, the more one stock or sector drives the whole ETF's return.
Structural health
A five-axis read on how this fund is built. It is not a return forecast or a recommendation, and a low score does not mean a bad fund — leveraged products score low by design. Each axis shows the figure behind it.
Its concentration index is above 2,500 (3,101) — a few names drive the return.
Unclassified alone is 61%. This is effectively a bet on that one industry — if the sector falls, diversification will not help.
A plain 1x physical fund holding the shares themselves — no structural drift from how long you hold it.
We don't have cost, fund size for Bridges Capital Tactical ETF yet, so those axes are excluded and the score is based on the other 3. Scoring a missing figure as zero would grade our data collection, not the fund.
Concentration and diversification
Structural health
A five-axis read on how this fund is built. It is not a return forecast or a recommendation, and a low score does not mean a bad fund — leveraged products score low by design. Each axis shows the figure behind it.
Its concentration index is above 2,500 (3,101) — a few names drive the return.
Unclassified alone is 61%. This is effectively a bet on that one industry — if the sector falls, diversification will not help.
A plain 1x physical fund holding the shares themselves — no structural drift from how long you hold it.
We don't have cost, fund size for Bridges Capital Tactical ETF yet, so those axes are excluded and the score is based on the other 3. Scoring a missing figure as zero would grade our data collection, not the fund.
Top 20 holdings
Weights are normalized to 100% of absolute exposures across analysed positions, including positions outside this top list. Cash, collateral and unverified assets are excluded. Contributions retain original signed NAV exposures; leverage is not applied twice.
Normalized to 100% of analysed positions
Weights are normalized to 100% of absolute exposures across analysed positions, including positions outside this top list. Cash, collateral and unverified assets are excluded. Contributions retain original signed NAV exposures; leverage is not applied twice.
| # | Holding | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Alpha Architect 1-3 Month Box ETFBOXX | 54.65% |
| 2 | Amazon.comAMZN | 4.63% |
| 3 | NetflixNFLX | 4.46% |
| 4 | Meta PlatformsMETA | 3.21% |
| 5 | AlphabetGOOG | 3.13% |
| 6 | TeslaTSLA | 3.05% |
| 7 | Invesco S&P 500 Momentum ETFSPMO | 2.97% |
| 8 | BroadcomAVGO | 2.91% |
| 9 | VanEck Semiconductor ETFSMH | 2.85% |
| 10 | IntelINTC | 2.74% |
| 11 | MicrosoftMSFT | 1.60% |
| 12 | AppleAAPL | 1.58% |
| 13 | Advanced Micro DevicesAMD | 1.39% |
| 14 | Micron TechnologyMU | 1.38% |
| 15 | Applied MaterialsAMAT | 1.30% |
| 16 | First American Government Obligs XFGXXX | 0.51% |
| 17 | MOOGMOG.A | 0.03% |
| 18 | BRIGHTSPRING HEALTH SERVICESBTSG | 0.03% |
| 19 | UMB FINANCIALUMBF | 0.03% |
| 20 | SM ENERGYSM | 0.03% |
Holdings below 0.5% or outside the top list are folded into “Others” and omitted above.
Where the weight sits — sector mix
Listed equity weights summed by sector and normalized to 100%. Each band is one sector's share.
Industry breakdown
HHI sums the squared weights. The more it leans on a few names, the higher it goes — and the more the whole ETF moves with them.
How concentrated is it
Bridges Capital Tactical ETF leans heavily on a handful of names. Its concentration index (HHI) is 3101, and the top 10 holdings make up 84.6% of equity weight — closer to owning a few stocks than a diversified basket.
If you bought it for diversification, note that when one or two of those names move sharply, most of the fund's day comes from them.
HHI squares each weight and sums them: 10,000 means one stock is everything, and the more evenly spread the holdings, the closer it falls to zero.
Where the sector weight sits
By sector, Unclassified alone is 61% — whatever the fund is called, this is a bet on that industry.
Bad news for the sector moves the whole fund. Worth checking against anything else you hold in the same space.
Weights above sum the individually listed equities and normalize that equity total to 100%.
How much it overlaps others
Even its closest peer, MOOD, overlaps only 36% (4 shared names).
Funds filed under the same label can hold quite different companies, so pairing this one with another may genuinely spread risk.
What it is made of
Equities are 64.6% of the fund, the rest swaps and cash — index exposure built synthetically rather than by owning the shares, which adds counterparty risk.
This page is not investment advice. Investment decisions and responsibility are your own.
BDGS comments
Leave a one-line take on Bridges Capital Tactical ETF. No account — just a nickname and a code to delete it later.
Loading…
Similar ETFs
Picked by how much their actual holdings overlap. The higher the overlap, the less diversification you get from owning both.