Core Insights - The ETF industry continues to thrive, with $1.5 trillion in 2025 and $103 billion in new money gathered by January 21, 2026 [1] Actively Managed ETFs - Actively managed ETFs, despite being over 10% of ETF assets, captured nearly one-third of all ETF inflows in 2025 and 37% of new money in 2026 [2] - Active fixed income ETFs were particularly popular, with the PIMCO Multisector Bond Active ETF (PYLD) leading with $1.0 billion in new money [3] Thematic ETFs - Thematic ETFs saw a resurgence with $23 billion in inflows after three years of outflows, primarily driven by robotics and AI [4] - The Global X Defense Tech ETF (SHLD) attracted $685 million in early 2026, reflecting ongoing geopolitical tensions [4] - The REX Drones ETF (DRNZ) launched in late 2025, quickly reaching $55 million in assets and gaining 28% [5] Diversification Trends - The Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF (RSP) emerged as a leader in 2026, gathering $4.5 billion and outperforming mega-cap ETFs [7] - RSP had significant net outflows in 2025 but benefited from a shift towards moderately sized large-caps in 2026 [8] Sector Performance - The State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLF) regained favor in 2026, gathering $3.2 billion, driven by strong quarterly results from major US banks [9]

Core Viewpoint - Fidelity's bond market investments are compared with iShares' municipal bond ETF, highlighting differences in risks and tax profiles for income-seeking investors [1] Cost & Size Comparison - MUB has an expense ratio of 0.05% while FBND has a higher expense ratio of 0.36% - As of January 25, 2026, MUB's 1-year return is 1.22% compared to FBND's 2.6% - MUB offers a dividend yield of 3.13%, whereas FBND provides a higher yield of 4.7% - MUB has an AUM of $41.85 billion, significantly larger than FBND's $23.91 billion [2] Performance & Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, MUB experienced a max drawdown of -11.88%, while FBND had a larger drawdown of -17.23% - An investment of $1,000 in MUB would have grown to $922, compared to $862 for FBND over the same period [4] Fund Composition - FBND, launched in 2014, holds 4,459 assets with 67% rated AAA, but also invests up to 20% in lower-quality debt securities like BBB-rated bonds [5] - MUB tracks a mix of investment-grade U.S. municipal bonds with 6,163 holdings, holding no U.S. government bonds and approximately 61% rated AA [6] Investor Implications - Bond ETFs like FBND and MUB behave differently from stock ETFs, with a slow recovery from the 2022 market crash - FBND may yield higher returns over time due to its inclusion of riskier B-rated bonds, while MUB offers tax benefits due to its municipal bond structure [7][9]

Core Insights - The Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF (BND) and Fidelity Total Bond ETF (FBND) provide core fixed-income exposure for investors seeking regular income and a buffer against stock market volatility [2] Cost & Size Comparison - BND has a lower expense ratio of 0.03% compared to FBND's 0.36%, making it significantly more affordable [3][4] - As of January 24, 2026, BND has a 1-year return of 4.3% while FBND has a return of 2.6% [3] - BND offers a dividend yield of 3.85%, whereas FBND provides a higher yield of 4.7% [3] Performance & Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, BND experienced a maximum drawdown of -17.93%, while FBND had a slightly lower drawdown of -17.23% [5] - An investment of $1,000 would have grown to $852 in BND and $862 in FBND over the same period [5] Holdings Composition - FBND, launched in 2014, holds 4,459 assets with 67% rated AAA, but allocates up to 20% in lower-quality debt securities [6] - BND has been established for 7 years longer, with 15,000 holdings and a higher concentration of AAA-rated bonds at 72.45% [7] Investor Implications - Both ETFs primarily invest in high-quality, investment-grade bonds, which reduces volatility compared to lower-rated debt [11] - FBND's allocation of around 20% to lower-quality bonds increases its risk/reward profile, potentially offering higher yields but with greater default risk [11]

Core Viewpoint - Fidelity Total Bond ETF (FBND) offers a higher yield and broader sector exposure compared to iShares 3-7 Year Treasury Bond ETF (IEI), but comes with a higher annual cost and greater historical risk [1][2]. Cost and Size Comparison - FBND has an expense ratio of 0.36%, while IEI has a lower expense ratio of 0.15% [3][4]. - As of January 9, 2026, FBND's one-year return is 2.5%, compared to IEI's 3.0% [3]. - FBND provides a dividend yield of 4.6%, whereas IEI offers a yield of 3.5% [3][4]. - The assets under management (AUM) for FBND is $23.4 billion, while IEI has an AUM of $17.7 billion [3]. Performance and Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, FBND has a maximum drawdown of -17.23%, compared to IEI's -14.05% [5]. - An investment of $1,000 in FBND would have grown to $862 over five years, while the same investment in IEI would have grown to $903 [5]. Investment Strategy and Holdings - FBND includes over 4,400 holdings, primarily consisting of U.S. Treasuries, investment-grade corporate bonds, and mortgage-backed securities, with up to 20% allocated to high-yield corporate bonds and emerging market debt [7][10]. - IEI exclusively invests in U.S. Treasury bonds with maturities between three and seven years, avoiding corporate and sector risks [8][10]. Investor Guidance - Conservative investors seeking government-backed safety should consider IEI, while income-focused investors willing to accept moderate corporate credit risk for higher yields may prefer FBND [12].

Core Insights - Fidelity Investment Grade Bond ETF (FIGB) and Fidelity Total Bond ETF (FBND) are both designed for investors seeking stable income and diversification from equities, with FBND having a significant advantage in terms of assets under management, yield, and volatility [2][3]. Fund Comparison - Both FIGB and FBND have the same expense ratio of 0.36% and have delivered a 1-year return of 3.8% as of January 9, 2026. However, FBND offers a higher dividend yield of 4.7% compared to FIGB's 4.1% [4][5]. - FBND has a much larger asset base of $23.4 billion compared to FIGB's $327.1 million, making it more attractive for investors looking for higher payouts and greater liquidity [5]. Performance & Risk Analysis - FBND has a max drawdown of 15.48% over four years, while FIGB has a slightly higher max drawdown of 16.18%. FBND's beta is 0.97, indicating lower sensitivity to equity market fluctuations compared to FIGB's beta of 1.02 [6][8]. - FBND's portfolio consists of 2,742 bonds, heavily weighted towards the energy sector (95%) and utilities (5%), while FIGB has a more concentrated portfolio of 180 holdings focused on investment-grade bonds [6][7].

Group 1: Dividend ETFs - The discussion highlights the appeal of dividend ETFs for income investors, focusing on their risk-reward profiles and exposure to factors like value, quality, and low volatility [2][4] - Four dividend ETFs received top ratings from Morning Star, including Vanguard's Dividend Appreciation ETF (VIG) and its international counterpart (VIGI), which emphasize companies with a long track record of increasing dividend payments [7][8] - The Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF targets companies with above-average dividend payouts while maintaining a diversified portfolio, balancing yield and risk [10][12] Group 2: Bond ETFs - Bond ETFs are experiencing significant inflows, with approximately one trillion dollars invested in ETFs this year, of which 30-33% is directed towards bond ETFs [15][16] - Core bond ETFs, such as Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF (BND) and iShares Core US Aggregate Bond ETF (AG), are recommended for their low volatility and broad exposure to the bond market [22] - Fidelity Total Bond ETF (FBND) is highlighted as a top pick in the Core Plus category, offering higher yield with slightly increased risk [27] Group 3: Covered Call ETFs - Covered call ETFs are gaining popularity due to their attractive yields, which are often higher than those of traditional dividend or bond funds [41][42] - The JP Morgan Equity Premium Income ETF (JEPPY) is noted for its competitive expense ratio and effective management strategy, making it a solid choice among covered call ETFs [51][52] - Investors should be aware of the trade-offs associated with covered call strategies, including potential caps on long-term growth in exchange for immediate income [49][50]

Core Viewpoint - Fidelity's bond ETF lineup, while smaller than some competitors, offers strategic options for investors looking to capitalize on the improved bond market environment heading into 2026 [1][3]. Group 1: Bond Market Environment - The fixed income market has seen a resurgence, with yields of 4% or greater available across various points on the yield curve, and inflation is now contained, allowing for a more favorable investment climate [2]. - The bond market is recovering from a challenging period, including a poor performance in 2022, and is now positioned to be a more integral part of traditional asset allocation strategies [1][2]. Group 2: Fidelity's Bond ETFs - Fidelity currently offers 13 bond ETFs, providing a range of options for investors to navigate the current economic landscape [3]. - The Fidelity Total Bond ETF (FBND) provides broad exposure to the total bond market, including both investment-grade and junk bonds, with minimal exposure to non-investment-grade and non-U.S. bonds [5][6]. - The Fidelity Enhanced Yield ETF (FDHY) focuses on the junk bond sector, employing a factor-based approach to select bonds with optimal value and quality characteristics, which may benefit from a healthy U.S. economy and stable credit spreads [10][11]. - The Fidelity Tactical Bond ETF (FTBD) combines features of both FBND and FDHY, covering all areas of the fixed-income market while allowing for tactical rotation based on valuation and quality assessments [12][13]. Group 3: Future Outlook - The bond market in 2026 is expected to be influenced by various economic factors, including growth, inflation, and labor market conditions, making a strategic approach to fixed income essential [7]. - Active management in bond funds is anticipated to yield better results as central banks approach the end of their rate-cutting cycles, shifting the focus from yield capture to security selection [14].