Summary Since November 2014, two tactical ETFs tracking cybersecurity have been issued. CIBR offers a reasonable expense ratio and a portfolio of companies that have performed well over the past 5 years. HACK is widely traded and offers a NAV of more than $1 billion, although that comes at a price. Businesses involved in strategies, equipment and software designed to protect data and data networks are in great demand, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Hardly a month goes by without the announcement of a data breach, either in the business environment or in government. The risk to data security is not limited to the U.S., either – it is a global concern. It was just a matter of time before someone offered a tactical ETF that focused on companies involved in cybersecurity 1 – the term used to refer to the particular data risks inherent to information systems. There are now two such ETFs: PureFunds ISE Cyber Security ETF (NYSEARCA: HACK ) First Trust NASDAQ CEA Cybersecurity ETF (NASDAQ: CIBR ) In the following, I examine these two funds, comparing and contrasting their investment approaches. I will also provide an estimate of their growth potential over the coming year. HACK HACK is the older of the two funds by about 7 months. Its holdings, based on the index provided by International Securities Exchange, LLC (ISE), is divided between two sectors: Infrastructure Providers and Service Providers . Infrastructure Providers are companies that develop hardware and software for cybersecurity; Service Providers are companies the business models for which is “defined by its role in providing” cybersecurity services. 2 All holdings in the fund must meet the following criteria: 3 Cybersecurity activities are a key driver of the business; Must not be listed on an exchange in a country that employs restrictions on foreign capital investment; Must have a minimum market capitalization of $100 million; Must be liquid; 4 Must be an operating company (not a pass-through security). Weighting of the holdings is determined on two levels: sector exposure is determined by the aggregate market capitalization of the holdings in each sector, and companies within a sector are weighted equally. 5 Rebalancing and reconstitution are semi-annual, in June and December. 6 Dividends are expected to be distributed monthly, while capital gains will be paid annually. 7 CIBR CIBR has been on the market for just over one month, as of this writing. Its index is based on the Consumer Electronics Association ‘s (CEA) cybersecurity classification, which requires that companies satisfy one of the following: 8 Focus on developing technologies designed to protect computer and communications networks from attack and outside unauthorized use; Involvement in deploying cybersecurity technologies to government, businesses, financial institutions and other industries; Focus on protecting priority data from unauthorized external access and exploitation. A company is eligible to be a holding of the fund if it: 9 Is classified as a cybersecurity company according to CEA requirements; Is listed on an index-eligible global stock exchange; Has a worldwide capitalization of at least $250 million; Has a three-month daily average trading volume of at least $1 million; Has a minimum free float of 20% of outstanding shares available for public trading. (In the case of companies issuing more than one security, only one holding is permitted.) Weighting is determined by the holdings’ liquidity; liquidity is determined using the three-month average daily dollar trading volume for each company. The portfolio is rebalanced quarterly, in March, June, September and December; the portfolio is reconstituted , if needed, in March and September. 10 Dividends , if any, are to be paid quarterly; capital gains will be distributed annually. 11 A Word About Dividends I would not expect either fund to pay any dividends on the basis of income received by way of dividends from their holdings. Very few of the companies in either fund’s portfolio pay dividends (fewer than one-third, in fact), and both funds use up the dividend income in covering expenses. Of course, dividends are only one source of income for an ETF, other mony coming through capital gains and interest. 12 The Holdings One would expect there to be a significant overlap in the holdings of these funds, given their tight focus; in fact, 23 companies are common to both portfolios – just over two-thirds of each. Both funds are open to holdings purchased in foreign markets, and each fund currently has six such funds, overlapping in three. Despite the fact that HACK and CIBR utilize different weighting strategies, there are six companies common to the funds’ top-ten holdings: Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (NYSE: PANW ); Cisco Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: CSCO ); Fortinet, Inc. (NASDAQ: FTNT ); Proofpoint, Inc. (NASDAQ: PFPT ); Imperva, Inc. (NYSE: IMPV ); and Trend Micro Inc. ( OTCPK:TMICY ). Performance One should not expect much in the way of reliable performance information from new ETFs, particularly one that is less than two months old. However, the following chart shows the two funds to be dancing to the same tune, as it were: The performance of the two funds has to be taken in the context of what has been a fairly disappointing 2015 – in particular, very poor conditions have prevailed since mid-July. 13 A dismal summer has seen HACK drop from a high of $33.60 (June 23) to a close of $27.17 (August 21) – a drop of 19.14%. CIBR has pretty much seen only the downside of the market. Portfolio Performance Since a new ETF, by definition, has no extended history, when considering the potential it might have, I believe it helps to take a look at its portfolio and see how that collection of holdings has performed historically. 14 With this in mind, the following chart shows the performance of CIBR and HACK, starting from August 2, 2010: 15 (click to enlarge) Given the fact that the two portfolios overlap by about 66% of their holdings, it is no surprise that the two seem to march in lock step. However, by August 2012, CIBR begins to gradually outperform HACK, ultimately besting it by 2770bps. On an annual basis, CIBR has a CAGR of 20.75% compared to HACK’s 18.02%. There is no clear reason why the CIBR portfolio should so clearly beat HACK’s. The addition of two extra holdings should not be that much of a factor; both portfolios contain foreign equities; for sake of comparison, the standards set for CIBR’s portfolio seem marginally more stringent than the requirements established for HACK. If number of holdings is the difference, it shouldn’t be a factor to consider in choosing either fund. The indices the funds are based on are fluid in terms of content, and companies may either be added to or subtracted from the universe determined by their eligibility criteria. I should expect both indices to increase as security becomes a more pressing concern. Expectations Based on the five-year performance of their respective portfolios, the following chart shows one course these funds may track over the coming year: 16 (click to enlarge) Interestingly, the spreadsheet factored in a drop in value this month, and we are coming off one of the worse weeks the market has seen in quite a few years. In the long term, however, both funds are projected to do quite well, with CIBR expected to outperform HACK by a significant margin. 17 Assessment Both funds have a lot going for them. First Trust has a respectable history of offering responsible, quality, funds. PureFund ‘s HACK is simply huge – its NAV is currently ~ $1.36 billion , and trading volume has been significant. If there is any cautionary factor in HACK’s data, it would be its expense ratio; currently, its ER is listed at 0.75% – over the ~0.65% average for indexed funds, and well over the 0.60% ER for its competitor, CIBR. Given its NAV, an ER of that size is going to eat into income, leaving very little left for investors; not that CIBR is going to offer much in the way of dividends. Both funds are, and will continue to be, driven by developments in the cybersecurity market, and I do not see any reason to believe that market is going to drop off any time soon. If anything, as “cloud” storage becomes more and more prevalent one should expect to see increasing demand for continued research in, and development of, security solutions. The existence of an active – and persistent – hacking community will see to that. All in all, I perceive CIBR to be the better bet at this point, but the funds are too close to be able to say the choice is compelling. Disclaimers This article is for informational use only. It is not intended as a recommendation or inducement to purchase or sell any financial instrument issued by or pertaining to any company or fund mentioned or described herein. All data contained herein is accurate to the best of my ability to ascertain, and is drawn from each Company’s Prospectus, Statement of Additional Information, and fact sheets. All tables, charts and graphs are produced by me using data acquired from pertinent documents; historical price data from The Wall Street Journal . Data from any other sources (if used) is cited as such. All opinions contained herein are mine unless otherwise indicated. The opinions of others that may be included are identified as such and do not necessarily reflect my own views. Before investing, readers are reminded that they are responsible for performing their own due diligence; they are also reminded that it is possible to lose part or all of their invested money. Please invest carefully. 1 Cybersecurity , in the broad sense, refers to “products (hardware/software) and services designed to protect computer hardware, software, networks and data from unauthorized access, vulnerabilities, attacks and other security breaches.” (HACK Prospectus , p. 2) HACK’s documentation refers to “cyber security,” (dividing the term into two words) while other sources use the single word. I endeavor to use the single word throughout. 2 HACK Prospectus , p. 2. 3 HACK Prospectus , p. 2. 4 This is not clarified in the Prospectus, but it is assumed to mean that the holdings must each be actively traded on the market. 5 HACK Prospectus , p. 2. 6 HACK Prospectus , p. 2. 7 HACK Prospectus , p. 13. 8 CIBR Prospectus , pp. 1-2. 9 CIBR Prospectus , p. 16. 10 CIBR Prospectus , p. 2. 11 CIBR Prospectus , p. 11. 12 My estimations of prospective dividends for new ETFs has been fairly good, so far, any difference between my calculation and the actual payments made being in the investors’ favor. 13 As I write this (Friday, August 21, 2015), the Dow has just finished the day down more than 500 points (-3.12%). 14 There are limitations to such a “backtest,” of course: it would be onerous, if not impossible, to apply a fund’s eligibility/selection criteria to the past – unless one has a lot of time and computing power, not to mention extensive access to databases. (This is why issuers of index-based ETFs pay out substantial amounts to license the indices their funds are based on.) Since not all companies currently in a portfolio have been in existence for extended period, matters of re-adjusting weightings becomes a substantial nuisance – except in the case of equal weighting. 15 Each portfolio was primed with a $25K “investment.” Each holding within the portfolio is weighted the same, throughout the trial, as it is currently weighted; in the case of companies entering the market later than August 2, the allocation they would have received is held in reserve until their entry into the portfolio. Portfolios were rebalanced and reconstituted quarterly. 16 The projection is based on the “forecast” function in Microsoft’s Excel which apparently bases its projections on an exponential trend line extrapolated from historical performance. 17 Note: these forecasts are generated by a spreadsheet, and are based on the historical performance of each fund’s portfolio holdings. This is not intended to reflect my own expectations of either fund. For my part – and as any responsible investor should realize – one cannot predict the future performance of any stock simply on the basis of past performance. At least, not with any degree of accuracy. The chart should be taken to reflect a potential tendency for future performance. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.