2026 年 02 月 03 日 Simplify 发行中国商品 ETF，白银 ETF 流出靠前 ——海外创新产品周报 20260202 相关研究 证券分析师 沈思逸 A0230521070001 shensy@swsresearch.com 邓虎 A0230520070003 denghu@swsresearch.com 联系人 沈思逸 A0230521070001 shensy@swsresearch.com 权 益 量 化 研 究 证 券 研 究 报 告 请务必仔细阅读正文之后的各项信息披露与声明 本研究报告仅通过邮件提供给 博时基金 博时基金管理有限公司(researchreport@bosera.com) 使用。1 ETP 研 究 - ⚫ 美国 ETF 创新产品：Simplify 发行中国商品 ETF。上周美国共 15 只新发产品，Simplify 发行中国商品 ETF，主要投资于在中国商品交易所上市的期货品种，产品主要通过 Altis Partners 基于估值、动量的量化多空模型进行品种选择，覆盖能源、谷物、工业投入品、 金属等品种。 ⚫ 美国 ETF 资金流向：白银 ETF 流出靠前。过去一周 ...

Core Insights - Investors added $165.4 billion to U.S.-listed ETFs in January 2026, a decrease from December's record but still significantly higher than January 2025's $107 billion [1] Group 1: ETF Inflows - International equity ETFs led the inflow rankings with $68.2 billion, surpassing the $42.7 billion that flowed into U.S. equity ETFs [2] - The iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (IEMG) attracted $8.8 billion in January, with a year-to-date gain of 8.3%, compared to a 2.2% gain for the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) [3] - VOO remains the most popular ETF overall, gathering $16.3 billion in January [3] Group 2: Fixed Income ETFs - U.S. fixed income ETFs saw inflows of $36.6 billion, while international fixed income ETFs attracted $15.6 billion [4] - Bond performance has been muted, with the Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF (BND) and the Vanguard Intermediate-Term Corporate Bond ETF (VCIT) both up about 0.2% year to date [4] Group 3: Commodity ETFs - Commodity ETFs pulled in $4.3 billion in January, primarily due to demand for gold, with the SPDR Gold Trust (GLD) gathering $2.6 billion in inflows [5] - In contrast, silver ETFs faced significant outflows, with the iShares Silver Trust (SLV) losing $2.9 billion in January [6] Group 4: Smaller Stocks - The Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF (RSP) gained $4.4 billion in January, benefiting from the outperformance of smaller stocks over large caps in 2026 [7] - RSP is up 3.8% year to date, nearly double the gain of the market-cap-weighted S&P 500 tracked by VOO [7]

Core Insights - The iShares Silver Trust (SLV) and SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) exhibit significant differences in performance, volatility, and cost, with SLV showing a substantial increase over the past year while GLD provides a more stable investment option with lower risk and fees [1][2]. Cost and Size Comparison - SLV has an expense ratio of 0.50%, while GLD has a slightly lower expense ratio of 0.40% [3][4]. - As of January 30, 2026, SLV's one-year return is 162.7%, compared to GLD's 72.4% [3]. - SLV has assets under management (AUM) of $51.5 billion, whereas GLD has a significantly larger AUM of $174.1 billion [3]. Performance and Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, SLV experienced a maximum drawdown of -38.79%, while GLD's maximum drawdown was -21.03% [5]. - An investment of $1,000 in SLV would have grown to $3,019 over five years, compared to $2,578 for GLD [5]. Fund Structure and Exposure - GLD is a physically backed gold fund that provides direct exposure to gold bullion, classified under Basic Materials, and does not hold equities or distribute dividends [6]. - SLV is structured to reflect the price of silver and is classified as 100% Real Estate, although it primarily tracks silver bullion without generating yield [7]. Market Behavior and Investor Suitability - Both GLD and SLV reflect the historical volatility of gold and silver, respectively, with gold being less plentiful and often used for wealth preservation, while silver has various industrial applications [8][9]. - Recent market conditions, including falling interest rates and geopolitical tensions, have driven interest in precious metals, leading to increased volatility, particularly in SLV, which saw a significant drop of over 30% in one day compared to GLD's 10% drop [11][12]. - SLV may appeal to risk-tolerant investors seeking higher potential returns, while GLD is more suitable for risk-averse investors [12].

在美国总统特朗普宣布印美达成贸易协议后，iShares MSCI印度ETF上涨3.1%。 ...

Market Overview - Gold futures experienced a significant decline, dropping below $4,800 per troy ounce, marking the steepest one-day drop since the early 1980s [1] - Silver futures fell more than 13% on the same day, with iShares Silver Trust (SLV) plunging 24.1% last week and SPDR Gold Trust (GLD) retreating 4.7% [1] Federal Reserve Influence - The market sell-off was influenced by President Trump's nomination of Kevin Warsh as the next Chair of the Federal Reserve, interpreted as reducing concerns over the Fed's independence due to Warsh's hawkish policy stance [2] - Evercore ISI noted that markets were "trading Warsh hawkish," suggesting that his appointment could stabilize the dollar, although risks remain [7] Price Corrections and Projections - Analysts from JPMorgan indicated that a correction in silver prices was inevitable after a strong rally, as prices had exceeded projected averages [3] - Despite the recent decline, Goldman Sachs raised its year-end gold price target to $5,400, citing potential upside from increased private-sector investment [4] Dollar Dynamics - A weakening U.S. dollar has been beneficial for gold and commodity investments, recently hitting a four-year low due to yen strength [5] - The decline in the dollar is seen as positive for gold prices, especially in light of U.S. policy uncertainty and trends toward de-dollarization [6] Central Bank Activity - Central bank buying, which has supported gold prices, has slowed in recent months, reducing a key source of upward momentum [10] - The outlook for gold in 2026 appears limited, with reduced geopolitical tensions and a potential fading of dollar weakness [9] Long-term Outlook - The strategic case for de-dollarization remains strong, influenced by Trump's trade policies, which may deter countries from holding U.S. assets [12] - Gold's upside in 2026 is expected to be limited, with silver also facing challenges despite its industrial demand linked to AI [11]

Core Insights - Gold and silver have experienced their steepest declines in years, reversing a powerful rally that had pushed prices to record levels, with gold prices falling approximately 10.31% over the past five days and 5.35% in the most recent session [1][4][11] Market Drivers - Geopolitical risks have been a primary driver of market volatility in 2026, compounded by renewed tariff frictions and U.S. military actions, which have increased demand for defensive and safe-haven assets [2] - A stronger U.S. dollar, which has increased by 1.25% over the past five days, has put additional pressure on gold and silver prices [5] - Heavy speculative inflows have turned precious metals into a crowded trade, leading to profit-taking and further declines in prices [3][11] Margin Requirements Impact - The CME Group's hike in margin requirements has contributed to a fresh wave of selling in metals, limiting speculative activity and curtailing liquidity [6][11] Investment Strategies - In light of the volatility in precious metals, investors are encouraged to explore alternative defensive ETFs that focus on low volatility, high-quality balance sheets, and stable cash flows [8][10] - Increasing allocations toward value, quality, and consumer staple ETFs can provide stability and cushion portfolios during market turmoil [9][13][14][15] - Passive, long-term strategies such as buy-and-hold or dollar-cost averaging are recommended to navigate potential near-term pullbacks while positioning for sustainable returns [16][17]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses high-yield exchange-traded funds (ETFs) that can provide substantial passive income while maintaining a focus on long-term growth, particularly in light of potential interest rate cuts later in the year [4]. Group 1: High-Yield ETFs - ProShares Russell 2000 High Income ETF (ITWO) targets high monthly income from small-cap U.S. stocks and aims for long-term total returns comparable to the Russell 2000 Index [5]. - ITWO has a yield of 11.37%, while iShares Treasury BuyWrite Strat ETF (TLTW) yields 14.71%, and Westwood Salient Enhanced Midstream Income ETF (MDST) yields 9.03% [8]. - ITWO employs a "daily reset" approach, which contrasts with traditional covered call ETFs that sell monthly options, potentially capturing more upside in bull markets [7]. Group 2: Market Position and Performance - Smaller-cap stocks have been underperforming, but recent interest rate cuts are revitalizing these stocks, leading to strong performance in the Russell 2000 Index over the past few months [6]. - MDST focuses on midstream energy pipelines that earn fee-based revenues from increased U.S. energy exports to Europe, positioning it well in the current market [8]. - A select group of ETFs has successfully generated substantial yields without excessive risk, indicating potential for meaningful passive income opportunities [4].

Core Insights - Active management is a significant growth driver in the ETF market, with nearly 1,000 active ETFs launched in 2025, surpassing the previous record of 584 in 2024 [2] - Despite the launch of 146 active ETFs shutting down, asset managers remain optimistic about continued investor demand and advisor adoption of active products [2] - Active ETFs accounted for approximately one-third of new money invested in ETFs last year, indicating a shift in advisor preferences [3] ETF Market Dynamics - Active ETFs attracted around $475 billion in inflows in 2025, with six firms—JPMorgan, Capital Group, Dimensional, iShares, American Century, and Fidelity—receiving about half of these inflows [3] - The trend of increasing inflows suggests that advisors are becoming more comfortable recommending active ETFs to clients [4] - The most active issuers in the market included GraniteShares, Themes ETF Trust, and Defiance, launching 71, 63, and 59 active ETFs respectively [5] Product Trends - Short-term, trading-oriented funds were the most popular, with over 340 launches last year, focusing on buffer strategies and niche areas [5] - In contrast, only 150 passive ETFs were launched in the same period, highlighting a shift towards active management strategies [5] - Some active ETFs experienced short lifespans, folding shortly after launch, indicating a trial-and-error approach among some issuers [4]

Core Insights - The article compares two U.S. technology ETFs: iShares US Technology ETF (IYW) and Fidelity MSCI Information Technology Index ETF (FTEC), highlighting their differences in cost, diversification, and performance. Group 1: Cost and Size - IYW has an expense ratio of 0.38% while FTEC has a significantly lower expense ratio of 0.08%, making FTEC more appealing for cost-conscious investors [2][8] - FTEC has a higher dividend yield of 0.43% compared to IYW's 0.14%, which could attract investors looking for passive income [2][9] - The assets under management (AUM) for IYW is $21 billion, while FTEC has $17 billion [2] Group 2: Performance and Risk - Over the past five years, IYW has a max drawdown of -39.44%, while FTEC's max drawdown is -34.95%, indicating that FTEC has been less volatile [3] - A $1,000 investment in IYW would have grown to $2,283 over five years, compared to $2,133 for FTEC, showing IYW's superior performance [3][10] Group 3: Holdings and Diversification - FTEC contains 289 holdings, providing broader coverage of the tech sector, while IYW has only 141 stocks [4][7] - The top three holdings for both ETFs are Nvidia, Microsoft, and Apple, but they constitute 44.42% of FTEC's portfolio compared to 46.09% for IYW, which may impact returns based on the performance of these companies [4][7] Group 4: Investment Implications - FTEC's diversification may reduce risk, while IYW's more concentrated approach could lead to higher returns if top holdings perform well [6][10]

Core Viewpoint - The iShares Semiconductor ETF (SOXX) and the Fidelity MSCI Information Technology Index ETF (FTEC) provide different investment strategies within the technology sector, with SOXX focusing solely on semiconductor companies and FTEC covering a broader range of tech stocks [1] Cost & Size - SOXX has an expense ratio of 0.34% and AUM of $18 billion, while FTEC has a lower expense ratio of 0.08% and AUM of $17 billion [2] - The 1-year return for SOXX is 52.84%, significantly higher than FTEC's 20.80% [2] - SOXX offers a dividend yield of 0.57%, compared to FTEC's 0.43% [3] Performance & Risk Comparison - SOXX has a maximum drawdown of -45.75% over 5 years, while FTEC's maximum drawdown is -34.95% [4] - An investment of $1,000 in SOXX would grow to $2,573 over 5 years, compared to $2,133 for FTEC [4] Composition of Funds - FTEC holds 289 stocks, with 98% in technology, 1% in communication services, and a small portion in industrials, featuring top positions like Nvidia, Microsoft, and Apple [5] - SOXX is concentrated with only 30 holdings, all in the semiconductor sector, with top stocks including Nvidia, Micron Technology, and Advanced Micro Devices [6] Implications for Investors - FTEC's broader approach with nearly 10 times as many holdings as SOXX offers greater diversification, potentially reducing risk and volatility during market downturns [7] - SOXX's focused strategy on semiconductor stocks can yield high returns during industry booms, as evidenced by its performance over the last 12 months, which has more than doubled that of FTEC [8]