Nyheter
Reductions in Supply and Debt Levels Provide Stability in 1Q
Reductions in Supply and Debt Levels Provide Stability in 1Q. The first quarter of 2016 was marked by evidence across the commodities spectrum that supply really is reacting both to low prices and low investment, and that a degree of stability may be creeping into markets. This was reflected in the solid improvement in the performance of the Global Hard Assets Fund (the “Fund”) during the quarter. In a dramatic reversal from the fourth quarter of 2015, Class A shares provided a total return for the first quarter of 11.18% (excluding sales charge). The Fund outperformed its commodity equities-based benchmark index, the Standard & Poor’s® (S&P) North American Natural Resources Sector Index (SPGINRTR), which returned 6.26% over the same period.
The Fund’s positions in the Gold, Diversified Metals & Mining, and Energy sectors were, in particular, significant contributors to positive performance. The two strongest contributing sectors were Gold (approximately 15.7% of Fund assets on average during the first quarter) and Diversified Metals & Mining (approximately 6.0% of Fund assets on average during the first quarter). Within the Energy sector, positive performance stemmed mainly from the Oil & Gas Exploration & Production (E&P) sub-industry (approximately 37.4% of Fund net assets on average during the first quarter). Within the Energy sector, the Oil & Gas Refining & Marketing sub-industry (approximately 4.0% of Fund assets on average during the first quarter) contributed negative performance, as did the Fertilizers & Agricultural Chemicals sub-industry (approximately 5.4% of Fund assets on average during the first quarter). During the quarter, the Fund continued to hold no position in Integrated Oil & Gas.
For comparative purposes, we continue to include total return figures for two additional commodity equity indices: the MSCI ACWI Commodity Producers Index (M2WDCOMP) and the Standard & Poor’s® (S&P) Global Natural Resources Index (SPGNRUN).
Fund Contribution
The top five contributing companies for the quarter came from the Diversified Metals & Mining and Gold sectors. Four of these were gold mining companies. During the quarter, as the other major metal miners finally embarked on their debt reduction programs, Glencore (4.2% of Fund net assets at period end*) benefited from the decisions it made back in 2015 to reduce its debt.
The fact that gold miners performed so well in the first quarter of the year provides, to us, strong confirmation that they came in to 2016 considerably more healthy than they have been for quite a while and deserved of a valuation re-rating.
(click to enlarge)
Barrick Gold (2.8% of Fund net assets at period end*) benefited from the restructuring it has been undertaking and its leverage to gold prices. Agnico Eagle Mines Ltd. (4.4% of Fund net assets at period end*) benefited from strong operational performance, its continued focus on cost reduction, and its engineering-related restructuring. Randgold Resources Ltd. (3.2% of Fund net assets at period end*) also benefited from strong operational performance and, not least, from the continuing strength of its balance sheet and the options with which this provided it. Goldcorp (3.3% of Fund net assets at period end*), which is now pursuing “organic” growth from opportunities available internally, rather than through acquisition, felt the benefits from the early stages of the restructuring plan put in place by its new CEO.
The five biggest individual performance detractors came from the Energy, Semiconductor Equipment (a.k.a. Solar) and the Fertilizers & Agricultural Chemicals sectors. Oil & Gas Exploration & Production company, SM Energy Co. (0.9% of Fund net assets at period end*) suffered, particularly in January, from concerns over its level of leverage. In addition to concerns about its leverage and liquidity early in the quarter, SemGroup Corp (0.9% of Fund net assets at period end*), an Oil & Gas Storage & Transportation company involved in midstream services, also faced questions about the status of some of its contracts and what might happen if any of its clients actually went bankrupt. Valero Energy Corp (3.5% of Fund net assets at period end*), an Oil & Gas Refining & Marketing company, suffered from the rebound in crude oil prices.
Semiconductor Equipment (Solar) company SunEdison (sold during the period*) faced considerable headwinds as the market’s interest in yieldcos, and their ability to access capital, continued to diminish. CF Industries Holdings (2.6% of Fund net assets at period end*) was hit by concerns around both Chinese production (which continued unabated) and the value of the Renminbi, in addition to concerns around nitrogen prices.
Market Review and Outlook
The quarter started with continuing concerns about growth in China, but also with concerns about U.S. growth. In January and through early-February, the market was more focused on financial than on economic concerns: about the Renminbi, further currency devaluations, and capital outflows from China. Although these appeared to have abated by the end of the quarter (amongst other things, the U.S. dollar had rolled over, relieving pressure not only on China’s, but also on other currencies), economic concerns still remained, albeit drawing less of a focus. Not least, data started to come through during the quarter indicating not only that Chinese copper purchases for 2015 were at a record level, but so, too, were imports of crude oil.
Both more negative interest rates and less confidence in the abilities of central banks led to gold becoming increasingly attractive during the quarter, particularly as a store of value, not least because it became cheaper to hold on a relative basis. As the price of the metal rose, gold miners, too, benefited. With many of them now having “put their houses in order”, they have been able to leverage a higher gold price and are now in a better spot than they have been at any time in the last four to five years.
In the metals and mining sector, Glencore performed especially well during the quarter. Much of this can be put down to the company’s vigorous and effective actions in addressing its level of debt. Whereas Glencore started really to address its leverage seriously during the third quarter of 2015, only at the end of the 2015, and the beginning of the 2016, did the other senior metals companies start to do the same. In the first quarter, the company continued to execute its plan to de-leverage its balance sheet, a course which it is set to pursue throughout the year, and about which we should expect further announcements in the second quarter. Glencore also benefited from a slight up-tick in metals prices during the first quarter.
During the quarter, there appeared to be no abatement in the geopolitical risks the world faced and still faces, risks that require continual monitoring. The situation in the Middle East continued to fester, despite Russia’s assertion that its job in Syria is now done. The bombings in Brussels and Lahore served only to demonstrate both the reach and ruthlessness of their respective terrorist perpetrators. Within this context, the uncertainty around elections in Germany, France and the U.S. only increased. As it did around the whole issue, and discussion, of Britain’s possible exit from the EU and the subsequent viability of the union were it actually to do so.
In the energy sector, there is clear evidence that crude oil supply is reacting to both current low prices and low investment. Certainly in the U.S., and in countries like Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, the UK (the North Sea) and China, there have been cuts in production. Demand continues to be stable and demand growth “on trend.” As we stated last quarter, although we anticipate a somewhat lackluster outlook for crude for the rest of this half, we are, however, a little more optimistic for the second half of the year.
We have been asked on occasion recently just how the current uptick in crude prices either compares or contrasts with the situation this time last year. We believe that there are a number of fundamental differences. In particular, at the start of 2015, supply was still increasing. The market was coming off a year where demand had disappointed. And while there may have been decent demand/consumption numbers, nobody really knew how solid (or real) they were. The rig count was falling, but was still at near record highs. The U.S. oil rig count may have dropped from 1,600 to 1,200 rigs in a matter of months, but it was still over 1,000 — a massive number! Recently we were at 354.
It is, therefore, not surprising that intense attention has been paid to the current status of production from U.S. oil shale. While the U.S. has accounted for the largest share of supply growth over the last six years, according to the EIA, it is likely to deliver shrinking supply over the next few years. This should come as a shock to no one as capital spending has been slashed and the number of rigs drilling for oil in the U.S. has plummeted, putting drilling activity back to a level roughly similar to the pre-shale oil era.
The intense scrutiny directed at U.S. production is understandable. However, we believe a much deeper structural story that could negatively impact global oil supply for the longer term is being somewhat overlooked. In our view, the underlying business model of the global integrated oil companies is under stress. While independent exploration and production companies reveal eye-popping capital spending cuts of nearly 50%, the integrated oil sector is also slashing spending by an unprecedented amount – nearing hundreds of billions of dollars over the 2014-2016 time period.
While capex and budgets were being cut in the first quarter of 2015, in this quarter they have been absolutely eviscerated. For example, at the beginning of 2015, capex for the integrateds was basically flat year over year. By the end of the year it was down roughly 23%-25%. And their forecast for this year is down approximately another 25%.
This is, indeed, in response to less cash available to invest due to current low oil prices, but it is also driven by poor operating results that have led the boards and executive management teams of these companies to question the likelihood of generating acceptable returns. Exploration success rates and the resultant replacement of reserves have been extremely weak in recent years. Thus, many integrated companies have begun to cancel or postpone projects past 2020.
With crude output in the U.S., Canada, and Iraq likely to be flat or declining over the next several years, where will new supply come from to meet a forecasted annual increase in demand of over one million barrels per day? In our opinion, the results of the integrated companies are an indication that most of the easy and cheap oil in the world has already been tapped and crude prices will need to rise to re-incentivize shale drilling − perhaps on a global basis.
As to what the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) may be planning to do, it’s our opinion that there is no coordinated action between OPEC and Russia. Iran is a law unto itself. However the overhang of Iranian production is dissipating because it has already raised production to about 3.2 million barrels per day with an eventual goal of getting to four million barrels per day. Although it is probably several years out, we would expect its output gradually to approach that goal over those several years.
Equity issuance amongst E&P companies (to maintain the flexibility to drill again at some point) continued in the first quarter, raising more than $10 billion.
Toward the end of March we visited a number of prospective clients (and clients) around Europe. As an indication of how sentiment appears to have changed just this quarter, amongst the most common questions asked of us by the first group was: “Did I miss it?” The question was not had the Fund missed the rebound, but had they, the prospective clients! However, of all of them, only one prefaced the question by describing it as ridiculous. That said, it does remain important to note the difference between where we are now and where we were at the beginning of 2015. The fundamentals are quite different. Now, save for the two big wildcards of what’s going to happen with global growth and what’s going to happen with Iran, all the pieces are in place. Which leads to the question: Is it too late, or is it just the beginning?
One of the main pillars of our investment philosophy continues to be to look for long-term growth and the structural enhancement in intrinsic value in the companies in which we invest. Even in today’s extremely challenging market conditions this continues to be one of our guiding tenets. Since we remain convinced that positioning our portfolio for the future, and not just reacting to current circumstance, is of paramount importance, our focus across the sectors in which we invest remains on companies that can navigate commodity price.
By: Shawn Reynolds, Portfolio Manager
All indices listed are unmanaged indices and include the reinvestment of dividends, but do not reflect the payment of transaction costs, advisory fees or expenses that are associated with an investment in the Fund. An index’s performance is not illustrative of the Fund’s performance. Indi¬ces are not securities in which investments can be made. 1The S&P North American Natural Resources Sector Index (SPGINRTR) includes mining, energy, paper and forest products, and plantation-owning companies. 2The MSCI ACWI Commodity Producers Index (M2WDCOMP) is a free float-adjusted market capitalization index designed to reflect the performance of listed commodity producers across three industry (or sub-industry) categories as defined by the Global Industry Classification Standard: energy, metals, and agriculture. 3The S&P Global Natural Resources Index (SPGNRUN) includes 90 of the largest publicly traded companies in natural resources and commodities businesses that meet specific invest-ability requirements, offering investors diversified and investable equity exposure across three primary commodity-related sectors: agribusi¬ness, energy, and metals and mining. 4The S&P Goldman Sachs Commodity Index (SPGSCITR) is a composite index of commodity sector returns, representing an unleveraged, long-only investment in commodity futures.
Please note that the information herein represents the opinion of the portfolio manager based on the prevailing market conditions and their judgment as of the date of this document. These opinions may change at any time and from time to time. This document is not in¬tended to be a forecast of future events, a guarantee of future results or investment advice. In preparing this document, we have relied upon and assumed, without independent verification, the accuracy and completeness of all information available from public sources. Opinions and estimates may be changed without notice and involve a number of assumptions which may not prove valid. There is no guarantee that any forecasts or opinions in this material will be realized. Historical performance is not indicative of future results; cur¬rent data may differ from data quoted. Current market conditions may not continue. No part of this material may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of VanEck. ©2016 VanEck.
You can lose money by investing in the Fund. Any investment in the Fund should be part of an overall investment program, not a complete program. The Fund is subject to risks associated with concentrating its investments in hard assets and the hard assets sector, including pre¬cious metals, natural resources and real estate, and can be significantly affected by events relating to these industries, including international political and economic developments, inflation, and other factors. The Fund’s portfolio securities may experience substantial price fluctuations as a result of these factors, and may move independently of the trends of industrialized companies. The Fund’s investments in foreign securi¬ties involve risks related to adverse political and economic developments unique to a country or a region, currency fluctuations or controls, and the possibility of arbitrary action by foreign governments, or political, economic or social instability. The Fund is subject to risks associated with investments in debt securities, derivatives, commodity-linked instruments, illiquid securities, asset-backed securities and CMOs. The Fund is also subject to inflation risk, market risk, non-diversification risk, leverage risk, credit risk and counterparty risk. Please see the prospectus and summary prospectus for information on these and other risk considerations.
Please call 800.826.2333 or visit vaneck.com for performance information current to the most recent month end and for a free prospectus and summary prospectus. An investor should consider the Fund’s investment objective, risks, and charges and expenses carefully before investing. The prospectus and summary prospectus contain this and other information. Please read them carefully before investing.
• Bitcoin Weathers Macroeconomic Storm
• Heightened User Activity, Soaring Transaction Fees, While Miners Sell Less
• Runes Protocol and Bitcoin’s Ever-Growing Ecosystem
Navigating Macro Headwinds, On-Chain Optics, and The Rise of Runes
This newsletter will be a Bitcoin-centric edition as we dissect the impact of recent macroeconomic events on Bitcoin’s price, followed up with an on-chain analysis of the network’s behavior post-halving. Additionally, we’ll explore some of the exciting innovations emerging within the Bitcoin ecosystem that were timed following the latest halving.
Bitcoin Weathers Macroeconomic Storm
The past two weeks have presented a challenging market environment for the crypto industry. As mentioned in our last newsletter, rising inflation in the U.S. remains, as evidenced by the higher-than-expected CPI print on April 9. Additionally, escalating conflict in the Middle East poses a significant threat to regional stability and added stress on the U.S. The potential of wider involvement from additional militant groups such as Lebanon’s Hezbollah, coupled with Iran’s control of a crucial maritime passage for commodity trading, the Strait of Hormuz, raise concerns about potential energy price hikes, steepening inflationary pressures and their effect on various asset classes.
Bitcoin initially reacted negatively to these events, experiencing an 8.22% drop in the immediate aftermath. Despite the 24/7 nature of crypto markets, which could have amplified the initial price shocks, Bitcoin’s underlying resilience shines through upon closer inspection. The S&P 500 fell by 2.03% on the market reopening last Monday and continues to tumble, while Bitcoin has recovered over 3.28% since the drawdowns, evidenced in Figure 1. This suggests a potentially more robust response to geopolitical turmoil compared to traditional assets, which is unsurprising given Bitcoin’s narrative as a flight to safety.
Figure 1: Bitcoin vs. Gold Price Performance Amid Geopolitical Tension
Source: TradingView
Examining Bitcoin’s market data, we see clear evidence that the futures market played a significant role in the initial price drops, which were attributed to the macroeconomic events of the last few weeks. A significant spike in long liquidations on the day of the attack, at $168M, suggests that some leveraged traders exited their positions, as shown below in Figure 2. Additionally, the high open interest at $35B leading up to the CPI print was followed by a recent $5B cool-off, indicating a correction in the futures market, reflected in the consolidation of the Bitcoin price.
Figure 2: Bitcoin Futures Long Liquidations, Short-Term and Long-Term Holder Supply
Source: Glassnode
Importantly, the spot market paints a more optimistic picture. In the last 10 days, which includes last week’s turbulence, long-term holders displayed minimal selling activity. Their holdings decreased by only 0.05%, while short-term holders continued to accumulate BTC, increasing their holdings by 0.5%. Notably, “Accumulation Addresses,” characterized by having no outbound transactions, holding more than 10 BTC, and not being affiliated with centralized exchanges or miners, have capitalized on the recent market dip. They currently hold over 3.17M BTC, accumulating over $2.3B since the CPI print, as evidenced below by Figure 3.
Figure 3 – Total Balance in Accumulation Addresses
Source: Glassnode
Further bolstering the positive outlook, the 90-day due diligence period for U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs has now concluded. According to Bloomberg, over 100 fund managers have disclosed their ownership of these products, signifying the growing institutional appetite for Bitcoin exposure, adding another layer of support to the asset class.
Heightened Activity, Soaring Transaction Fees, While Miners Sell Less
In the world of Bitcoin, transactions get logged onto a whiteboard-like structure, divided into cells called “blockspace,” where each cell represents a limited amount of space. Transaction fees play a crucial role in managing limited block space on the Bitcoin network. Users who pay higher fees get their transactions prioritized for confirmation within these blocks. This ensures smoother operation by preventing congestion and disincentivizing low-value spam transactions. Additionally, transaction fees serve as an important security measure. They incentivize miners to dedicate significant computing power to validate transactions and secure the network. Without these fees, mining might become less profitable, potentially jeopardizing network security.
Finally, transaction fees are at the core of Bitcoin’s economic sustainability as the mining reward gets halved every 210,000 blocks, transaction fees step up to fill the gap and pump miners’ revenue. We can already see the early innings of transaction fees rising against the issuance or block rewards since the launch of Ordinals in 2023, as shown in the chart below.
Figure 4 – Bitcoin Miners Revenue Breakdown
Source: 21co on Dune
It is no surprise that Bitcoin network activity has been high this year, with the amount of active addresses hovering between 700K and 1 million since January, up until the halving event. On-chain data reveals a lower-than-expected drop in active addresses following the halving, with transaction fees reaching new highs. While active addresses did experience a significant drop (43%) on April 19, falling from over 893K to 500K, they have already recovered 70K since then. Historically, the halving typically leads to a smaller decrease in active addresses (3-9%). This larger drop could indicate that rising fees are pricing some users out of the market for now, but as we’ll cover later, there are certain solutions being worked on to help alleviate this issue.
That said, transaction fees soared up to $128 on April 20, breaking $78M, tripling the previous all-time high, and making up 75% of Bitcoin miner revenue, as shown in Figure 4. The spike was primarily due to Ordinal-like inscriptions which have recently seen a spike thanks to Runes protocol, which we’ll delve deeper into in the last section. In line with this, the burgeoning Bitcoin ecosystem, expedited by Rune, has not only pushed Bitcoin out of its comfort zone unlocking new use cases, but also its transaction fees to surpass Ethereum’s since May 2023, as seen in Figure 5.
Figure 5 – BTC vs ETH fees (2 Years)
Source: Glassnode
The growth in transaction fees is appreciated even further, especially when we examine miner behavior following the halving event. Miners are now less motivated to immediately liquidate their freshly acquired BTC, as they can capitalize on an additional revenue stream apart from block rewards.
Let’s zoom in on miner activity after the halving. About 50 BTC were sold on centralized exchanges on April 20, which doesn’t compare to the sell-off of March 5 when approximately 1,154 BTC were sent to exchanges, pulling the asset to ~$64K, down from ~$68K, as shown in the chart below. The recent sale also doesn’t compare to the 307 BTC sold on the day following the previous halving in May 2020, when the asset was trading just below $9K.
Figure 6 – Transfer Volume from Bitcoin Miners to Exchanges in BTC (YTD)
Source: Glassnode
The rising importance of Ordinal inscription, akin to non fungible tokens (NFTs), can be seen with Bitcoin generating $475M in real NFT sales versus Ethereum, which helps miners rake in more revenue and become sustainable. That said, the growing adoption of the Runes protocol is expected to drive even more activity toward the miners over the coming months.
Runes Protocol and Bitcoin’s Evergrowing Ecosystem
To recap, Runes streamlines the creation and management of fungible tokens on top of Bitcoin. It addresses the inefficiencies of the BRC20 standard, which have burdened the Bitcoin blockchain due to its inefficient data handling approach. That said, Runes achieves this in two key ways. Firstly, it optimizes transaction fees by consolidating multiple Unspent Transaction Output (UTXO) transactions into one bundle, leveraging Bitcoin’s accounting UTXO model. Additionally, it utilizes Bitcoin’s script, OP_Return, to inscribe data directly onto the blockchain, which serves to assign and transfer Runes balances within the network’s UTXOs. By minimizing data usage to 80 bytes, compared to BRC20’s 4MB, Runes prevents unnecessary bloat on the Bitcoin blockchain.
Ultimately, Runes presents an innovation aimed at bolstering Bitcoin’s security budget, offering miners an alternative revenue source to reduce their dependence on Bitcoin’s subsidized rewards over the long term. In fact, miners have earned about 1,500 BTC, valued at close to $100M in less than three days of trading activity, as seen below in Figure 7. To that end, Runes has garnered widespread support from the outset, with multiple Tier 2 exchanges such as OKX and Gate.io already announcing the listing of early collections like UNCOMMON.GOODS and MEME.ECONOMICS, which were among the first collections minted. Additionally, Binance appears to be hinting at support for meme tokens like Wizard and Pups, which were also among the first tokens to migrate from the BRC20 to the Runes standard. Meanwhile, NFT platforms like Magic Eden and Bitcoin-focused wallet provider Unisat are also joining the trend to capitalize on Runes’ growing popularity.
Figure 7: Fees Paid by Users to Mint Tokens Using the New Runes Protocol
Source: CryptoKoryo on Dune
Following the pattern of past hype cycles, we anticipate that the initial excitement surrounding Runes will gradually subside, followed by a surge of heightened activity in the long run. This trend is often observed because the initial wave of interest tends to be on meme tokens, which can be quickly deployed and attract the masses’ attention, but often don’t add substantial value. However, as time progresses, sophisticated primitives like exchanges, automated market makers, and other DeFi lego blocks will begin emerging. These advancements will bolster Bitcoin’s capabilities at the application layer, streamlining the process of token trading on the Bitcoin network, much like ERC20/ERC721 did for Ethereum. In fact, when considering Bitcoin’s untapped market potential to establish its own fungible market ecosystem compared to other smart contract platforms, it becomes evident that there is substantial room for growth for this new generation of tokens, as illustrated in Figure 8 below.
Figure 8: The Market Opportunity for Bitcoin’s Fungible Tokens Ecosystem
Source: FranklinTempleton
That said, Ordinals and Runes aren’t the only source of excitement pushing the boundaries of Bitcoin. For one, Bitcoin’s scaling solution Stacks began the first phase of its Nakamoto upgrade, called the instantiation stage, on April 22, while its final phase is expected to culminate by the end of May. As part of the upgrade, Stacks will introduce faster block processing times, enabling transactions to be finalized in under 5 seconds, a significant improvement from Bitcoin’s average of 10-30 minutes. Additionally, Stacks will leverage Bitcoin’s robust security guarantees, making transaction reversals on the Stacks network as challenging as those on the Bitcoin network. Furthermore, the upgrade will introduce a 1:1 BTC-backed asset (sBTC), enhancing the utility of Bitcoin by enabling its use across a diverse ecosystem of financial and gaming applications built on top of the scaling solution. The growing excitement surrounding its upgrade has pushed the total valued locked on the network to its highest point last week, reaching $170M.
On the other hand, there is a growing ecosystem of scaling solutions emerging on the back of BitVM, released last year. Standing for Bitcoin Virtual machine, this primitive is an operating system that allows for native smart-contract functionality on top of Bitcoin. It does so by introducing what’s known as a two-party provider verifier model that allows for complex computation to be executed off-chain, which can then be challenged on top of Bitcoin using fraud proofs, akin to how Arbitrum and Optimism function. To put it simply, BitVM enables Bitcoin to host more complex applications, which is giving birth to an embryonic L2 landscape, including Chainway, BitLayer, and Bob, amongst others, aiming to alleviate the issue of rising transaction costs. However, we will be closely monitoring this emerging sector, as there are numerous projects attempting to exploit the unprecedented enthusiasm for Bitcoin to launch potentially fraudulent protocols.
Bookmarks
Have you read our latest report, The Bitcoin Halving and Beyond? Click here to get a digital copy.
This Week’s Calendar
Source: Forex Factory, 21Shares
Research Newsletter
Each week the 21Shares Research team will publish our data-driven insights into the crypto asset world through this newsletter. Please direct any comments, questions, and words of feedback to research@21shares.com
Disclaimer
The information provided does not constitute a prospectus or other offering material and does not contain or constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of any offer to buy securities in any jurisdiction. Some of the information published herein may contain forward-looking statements. Readers are cautioned that any such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks and uncertainties and that actual results may differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements as a result of various factors. The information contained herein may not be considered as economic, legal, tax or other advice and users are cautioned to base investment decisions or other decisions solely on the content hereof.
AAKI ETF drar fördel av användningen av robotik och artificiell intelligens
Tillgång till italienska statsobligationer med fast löptid
Navigating Macro Headwinds, On-Chain Optics, and The Rise of Runes
WisdomTree utökar sortimentet med US Quality Growth UCITS ETF (QGRW)
SJPD ETF köper alla slags japanska aktier
ETFmarknaden i Europa firar sitt 24-årsjubileum med tillgångar på två biljoner USD
De mest populära börshandlade fonderna mars 2024
3 ETF:er du nog inte visste finns
FUIG ETF investerar i hållbara företagsobligationer som följer Parisavtalet
Tillgång till obligationsmarknaden för företagsobligationer från utvecklade marknader
-
Nyheter1 vecka sedanETFmarknaden i Europa firar sitt 24-årsjubileum med tillgångar på två biljoner USD
-
Nyheter4 veckor sedanDe mest populära börshandlade fonderna mars 2024
-
Nyheter4 veckor sedan3 ETF:er du nog inte visste finns
-
Nyheter3 veckor sedanFUIG ETF investerar i hållbara företagsobligationer som följer Parisavtalet
-
Nyheter1 vecka sedanTillgång till obligationsmarknaden för företagsobligationer från utvecklade marknader
-
Nyheter2 veckor sedanFörsvarsfond når förvaltad volym på 500 MUSD
-
Nyheter3 veckor sedanVad händer härnäst för Bitcoin?
-
Nyheter3 veckor sedanNy börshandlad fond från Deka ger tillgång till S&P 500-index
