AGF U.S. Market Neutral Anti-Beta Fund (BTAL) holdings & weights
Per-holding contribution · concentration · sector skew — a deep read
Fund overview
This is a US-listed ETF from AGF. It tracks the Dow Jones U.S. Thematic Market Neutral Low Beta Index. Key facts — expense ratio 1.4%; net assets about $333M; inception Sep 13, 2011. Its 1-year return is -15.03%.
Fund details
Fund overview
This is a US-listed ETF from AGF. It tracks the Dow Jones U.S. Thematic Market Neutral Low Beta Index. Key facts — expense ratio 1.4%; net assets about $333M; inception Sep 13, 2011. Its 1-year return is -15.03%.
23 identified stocks · net exposure / NAV 10.32%. Display weights are normalized to 100%; calculations retain original exposures without an additional leverage multiplier. Cash and unallocated contracts are excluded from stock attribution.
Weight and calculation basis
23 identified stocks · net exposure / NAV 10.32%. Display weights are normalized to 100%; calculations retain original exposures without an additional leverage multiplier. Cash and unallocated contracts are excluded from stock attribution.
Today's summary
Its top 10 holdings make up about 46.3% of the fund. The concentration index (HHI) is 438 — Low — evenly diversified, and the largest sector is Information Technology (37%). 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.
Concentration is below 1,500 (438), so no single holding dominates.
The largest sector is Information Technology at 37% — industries are reasonably spread.
1.4% a year is on the high side — about 14.0% over a decade, so it needs a reason to earn that.
Net assets of $333M — liquid enough to trade, and unlikely to be wound down.
A plain 1x physical fund holding the shares themselves — no structural drift from how long you hold it.
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.
Concentration is below 1,500 (438), so no single holding dominates.
The largest sector is Information Technology at 37% — industries are reasonably spread.
1.4% a year is on the high side — about 14.0% over a decade, so it needs a reason to earn that.
Net assets of $333M — liquid enough to trade, and unlikely to be wound down.
A plain 1x physical fund holding the shares themselves — no structural drift from how long you hold it.
Top 20 holdings
1 derivative positions are excluded. Stock contributions do not explain the entire ETF return.
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 | DynatraceDT | 5.23% |
| 2 | F5FFIV | 5.23% |
| 3 | ZscalerZS | 4.94% |
| 4 | CloudflareNET | 4.94% |
| 5 | McKessonMCK | 4.56% |
| 6 | AccentureACN | 4.36% |
| 7 | CDWCDW | 4.26% |
| 8 | VeriSignVRSN | 4.26% |
| 9 | APAAPA | 4.26% |
| 10 | RenaissanceReRNR | 4.26% |
| 11 | MSC Industrial DirectMSM | 4.26% |
| 12 | Science Applications InternationalSAIC | 4.17% |
| 13 | Johnson Controls InternationalJCI | 4.17% |
| 14 | The KrogerKR | 4.17% |
| 15 | Philip Morris InternationalPM | 4.17% |
| 16 | W. R. BerkleyWRB | 4.17% |
| 17 | Cardinal HealthCAH | 4.17% |
| 18 | W.W. GraingerGWW | 4.07% |
| 19 | EverestEG | 4.07% |
| 20 | The Travelers CompaniesTRV | 4.07% |
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
Concentration (HHI) is low at 438, with the top 10 holdings at just 46.3% of equity weight. No single name can dominate the fund.
Good for damping single-stock risk — and equally, a big winner inside gets diluted.
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
Sector weights run Information Technology(37%) · Financials(21%) · Health Care(13%). At 37%, the leading sector is a clear tilt.
Expect it to ride that industry's cycle — ahead of the index in good stretches, behind in bad ones.
Weights above sum the individually listed equities and normalize that equity total to 100%.
How much it overlaps others
Its closest neighbour is RAYJ at 90% overlap — effectively the same basket.
Holding both is not diversification, it is buying the same companies twice. Pick whichever is cheaper.
What it is made of
The fund holds 408 positions in total; this page lists the largest 23 and folds the rest into "Others".
Equities are 10.3% of the fund, the rest swaps and cash — index exposure built synthetically rather than by owning the shares, which adds counterparty risk.
The expense ratio is 1.4% a year, which is not cheap. Fees come out of returns every year you hold, so it is worth checking whether the same index is available for less.
This page is not investment advice. Investment decisions and responsibility are your own.
BTAL comments
Leave a one-line take on AGF U.S. Market Neutral Anti-Beta Fund. 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.