Core Insights - The Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Consumer Staples ETF (RSPS) and the Invesco Food & Beverage ETF (PBJ) focus on defensive market segments but employ different strategies for selection and management [1] Cost & Size - RSPS has a lower expense ratio of 0.40% compared to PBJ's 0.61% - RSPS offers a higher dividend yield of 2.63% versus PBJ's 1.7% - RSPS has assets under management (AUM) of $250 million, while PBJ has $100 million [2][3] Performance & Risk Comparison - RSPS has a maximum drawdown of 18.60% over five years, while PBJ's is 15.84% - An investment of $1,000 in RSPS would grow to $1,073 over five years, compared to $1,293 for PBJ [4] Portfolio Composition - PBJ consists of 32 companies, with 37% in packaged foods and meats and 18% in soft drinks; major holdings include Hershey, Sysco Corp, and PepsiCo, each around 5% [5] - RSPS is focused solely on consumer defensive stocks from the S&P 500, equally weighting 38 holdings such as Bunge Global, Colgate-Palmolive, and Hershey, ensuring no single stock exceeds 3% of the portfolio [6][7] Investment Implications - RSPS provides broader exposure by including food and beverage stocks along with other consumer staples, household products, tobacco, and personal care stocks, resulting in greater diversification [7] - PBJ's portfolio is more concentrated with 32 stocks and employs a selection process based on price momentum, earnings momentum, quality, management action, and value, including small- and mid-cap stocks [8]

The Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Consumer Staples ETF (NYSEMKT:RSPS) and the First Trust Nasdaq Food & Beverage ETF(NASDAQ:FTXG) differ most in cost, portfolio focus, and recent performance -- with RSPS charging lower fees, maintaining a tighter sector tilt, and outpacing FTXG over the past year. Both RSPS and FTXG target the U.S. consumer staples space, but with distinct approaches. RSPS takes an equal-weighted slice of the S&P 500’s consumer staples sector, while FTXG tracks a smart-beta index focused ...

Group 1: ETF Overview - Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) provide instant diversification into a basket of stocks across sectors, regions, or indices, such as the S&P 500 and Nasdaq-100 [1][2] - ETFs are suitable for investors looking to benefit from long-term stock market growth without managing individual stocks [2] Group 2: Leveraged ETFs - Leveraged ETFs aim to double or triple the performance of an underlying stock or index, with examples like Direxion's Daily S&P 500 Bull 3x Shares [4] - These ETFs utilize derivatives, such as total return swaps, to achieve their leveraged returns, effectively allowing a $100 million investment to control a $300 million position [5] - The gains or losses from leveraged ETFs reset daily, meaning they can amplify both gains and losses significantly, leading to potential compounded losses during volatile market conditions [6][7] Group 3: Risks and Costs - Leveraged ETFs can outperform in a prolonged rally but may incur substantial losses during periods of market volatility [7] - High fees associated with leveraged ETFs, such as SPXL's net expense ratio of 0.87%, are significantly higher than traditional ETFs like VOO, which has a ratio of 0.08% [7]

Core Viewpoint - Invesco is an independent investment management firm focused on enhancing the investment experience for individuals [1] Group 1 - Invesco offers expert investment views through its US Blog, encouraging individuals to stay informed [1] - The firm emphasizes the importance of reading the prospectus and considering investment objectives, risks, charges, and expenses before investing [1] - Invesco does not provide tax advice and highlights the complexity and variability of federal and state tax laws [1] Group 2 - The opinions expressed by Invesco's authors are based on current market conditions and may change without notice [1] - Invesco's investment advisory services are provided by affiliated investment advisers, and they do not sell securities [1] - Invesco Unit Investment Trusts are distributed by Invesco Capital Markets, Inc., and other broker-dealers [1]

Core Viewpoint - The Invesco QQQ Trust has shown significant growth over the past five years, but concerns about inflated valuations and potential volatility may affect its future performance [2][3][4]. Group 1: Performance and Growth - The Invesco QQQ Trust has risen approximately 84% over the past five years, translating to a compounded annual growth rate of about 13%, outperforming the historical average return of the S&P 500 at around 10% per year [2]. - The ETF has remained flat since the beginning of the year, indicating potential challenges ahead due to market conditions [4]. Group 2: Valuation Concerns - Many top holdings in the Invesco fund, such as Palantir Technologies and Tesla, are trading at over 200 times their trailing earnings, raising concerns about their inflated valuations and the risk of significant declines [4]. - The fund's exposure to high-priced stocks may lead to volatility in the short term, especially if a market correction occurs [3][4]. Group 3: Long-term Investment Potential - For long-term investors planning to hold the ETF for five years or more, the Invesco QQQ Trust remains a viable investment option, providing access to top growth stocks despite short-term risks [5]. - The ETF has previously recovered from a 33% decline in 2022 and is expected to bounce back from future downturns, suggesting strong long-term return potential [6].

Jonathan Ferro, Lisa Abramowicz and Annmarie Hordern speak daily with leaders and decision makers from Wall Street to Washington and beyond. No other program better positions investors and executives for the trading day. Chapters: 00:04:19 - Marvin Loh, State Street 00:15:58 - Terry Haines, Pangaea Policy 00:29:34 - Frances Donald, RBC 00:38:50 - Meghan Robson, BNP Paribas 00:52:08 - Eric Johnston, Cantor Fitzgerald 01:06:42 - Jon Lieber, Eurasia Group 01:17:44 - Mike Pyle, BlackRock 01:28:16 - Matthew Mish ...

Core Viewpoint - The S&P 500 index has shown strong performance in January 2026, climbing 1.4%, but two specific ETFs have significantly outperformed this benchmark, indicating a potential trend favoring smaller companies [1][3][6]. Performance of ETFs - The Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF increased by 3.4% in January, while the iShares Russell 2000 ETF rose by 5.5%, showcasing their ability to outperform the S&P 500 index [3][4]. - Both ETFs provide a means to invest more heavily in smaller stocks, with the Equal Weight ETF distributing investments equally among S&P 500 components and the Russell 2000 ETF tracking the smallest 2000 companies by market cap [4]. Market Dynamics - Over the past three years, smaller companies have lagged behind large-cap stocks, particularly those in the AI sector, which have driven the S&P 500 to record levels of concentration, with the top 10 stocks making up 41% of the index's value [5]. - There is a potential reversal of this trend, suggesting that small-cap stocks and the equal-weight index may continue to outperform larger companies [6]. Economic Outlook - Macroeconomic factors are expected to favor smaller companies, particularly as the impact of last year's tariffs imposed by President Trump begins to wane. These tariffs had disproportionately affected smaller firms that lack the negotiating power of larger corporations [7][8]. - As the market adjusts to the absence of these tariffs, smaller companies are anticipated to experience improved earnings growth expectations [8].

Core Insights - The Fidelity MSCI Consumer Staples Index ETF (FSTA) and the Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Consumer Staples ETF (RSPS) target U.S. consumer staples stocks but employ different strategies leading to distinct outcomes [1] Cost & Size - FSTA has a significantly lower expense ratio of 0.08% compared to RSPS's 0.40%, resulting in annual fees of $8 versus $40 for every $10,000 invested [2][3] - As of February 3, 2026, FSTA has a 1-year return of 8.34%, while RSPS has a return of 7.01% [2] - FSTA has a larger asset under management (AUM) of $1.3 billion compared to RSPS's $232 million [2] Performance & Risk Comparison - Over five years, FSTA has a lower maximum drawdown of -16.57% compared to RSPS's -18.61% [4] - An investment of $1,000 in FSTA would grow to $1,385 over five years, while the same investment in RSPS would grow to $1,067 [4] Holdings Composition - FSTA holds 96 stocks, primarily in consumer defensive sectors (98%), with top positions in Costco Wholesale, Walmart, and Procter & Gamble making up nearly 37% of its assets [5] - RSPS, in contrast, holds 36 stocks with an equal-weight strategy, where each stock constitutes roughly 3% of the portfolio, promoting a more balanced exposure [6] Investment Implications - FSTA's concentration in large brands may benefit investors when these companies perform well, but could pose risks if they underperform [7] - RSPS's equal-weight approach may reduce volatility, as all stocks are treated equally, potentially leading to more stable performance [8] - There is no definitive winner between the two ETFs, as each offers unique advantages that may appeal to different investor preferences [9]

Core Viewpoint - The Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) and the Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 ETF (QQQ) are both large-cap U.S. equity ETFs, but they differ in expense ratios, sector focus, and risk profiles, which may appeal to different investor priorities [1]. Group 1: Cost and Size - VOO has a lower expense ratio of 0.03% compared to QQQ's 0.18% [2]. - As of February 7, 2026, VOO's one-year return is 13.92%, while QQQ's is 15.12% [2]. - VOO offers a higher dividend yield of 1.11% compared to QQQ's 0.45% [2]. - VOO has assets under management (AUM) of $839 billion, significantly higher than QQQ's $412 billion [2]. Group 2: Performance and Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, VOO experienced a maximum drawdown of -24.53%, while QQQ had a deeper drawdown of -35.12% [3]. - An investment of $1,000 in VOO would have grown to $1,782 over five years, whereas the same investment in QQQ would have grown to $1,840 [3]. Group 3: Portfolio Composition - QQQ tracks the NASDAQ-100 with a heavy concentration in technology (51%) and communication services (17%), with top holdings including Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft [4]. - VOO mirrors the broader S&P 500, allocating 35% to technology, 13% to financial services, and 11% to communication services, with similar top holdings but at lower weights [5]. Group 4: Implications for Investors - QQQ is more concentrated in tech and designed for growth, achieving above-average returns compared to VOO [6]. - VOO offers greater diversification with roughly five times as many holdings as QQQ, which may reduce sector volatility [7]. - Investors seeking stability may prefer VOO, while those looking for higher growth potential may opt for QQQ, accepting the associated risks [8].

Core Insights - The Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) and Invesco QQQ Trust (QQQ) are both large-cap U.S. equity ETFs but differ in their investment focus and strategies [1] Cost & Size - VOO has a lower expense ratio of 0.03% compared to QQQ's 0.18% [2] - As of February 2, 2026, VOO's 1-year return is 15.79%, while QQQ's is higher at 20.13% [2] - VOO offers a dividend yield of 1.13%, significantly higher than QQQ's 0.46% [2] - VOO has an Assets Under Management (AUM) of $839 billion, compared to QQQ's $407 billion [2] Performance & Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, VOO's maximum drawdown is -24.53%, while QQQ's is steeper at -35.12% [4] - A $1,000 investment in VOO would have grown to $1,853, whereas the same investment in QQQ would have grown to $1,945 over five years [4] Portfolio Composition - QQQ tracks the NASDAQ-100 with 101 holdings, heavily weighted towards technology (53%), followed by communication services (17%) and consumer cyclical (13%) [5] - VOO, tracking the S&P 500, holds 504 stocks, with technology making up 35%, financial services at 13%, and communication services at 11% [6] - The top holdings of both ETFs include major tech companies like Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft, but VOO offers a broader sector mix for diversification [6] Implications for Investors - VOO is more diversified, which may appeal to investors looking to limit risk during market downturns [7] - QQQ is more growth-focused, with a significant allocation to tech stocks, which can lead to higher volatility [8] - QQQ has experienced more price fluctuations, indicated by a higher beta and maximum drawdown compared to VOO, but has also outperformed VOO in total returns over both 12-month and five-year periods [9]