CMDY VS GCC: Tracking and Exposure | ETF Insider
In the financial world, commodities play an essential role in diversifying a portfolio and hedging against market volatility. Two of the popular benchmarks in this arena are CMDY and GCC. While both track commodities, their approach, holdings, and strategies differ. Let's delve deep into their structures, differences, and benefits, so investors can make informed decisions.
CMDY VS GCC: Sectors and Top Holdings
CMDY and GCC, though similar in commodity exposure, have varied sectoral allocations.
Predominantly, CMDY focuses on a broader range of commodities, giving investors a comprehensive exposure. It encompasses energy, metals, and agriculture. Among its top holdings, you'll find crude oil, gold, and soybeans, showcasing a blend of both high and low volatility commodities.
Contrarily, GCC follows an equal-weight strategy, ensuring that no particular commodity or sector dominates the portfolio. This can be beneficial in avoiding concentration risk. The top holdings are spread evenly among sectors like oil, wheat, coffee, and copper.
CMDY overlap CMDY VS GCC
CMDY VS GCC: Capitalization strategy
The capitalization strategy, or the method in which funds allocate their assets, is another area where CMDY and GCC differ.
Primarily, CMDY uses a market capitalization strategy. This means the more significant and more dominant a commodity's market, the larger its representation within the ETF. Consequently, commodities with larger market caps like oil or gold may have a more significant influence on its performance.
On the other hand, GCC’s equal-weight strategy ensures that every commodity it holds has an equal representation. This can lead to lesser-known or less traded commodities having as much weight as the more prominent ones. It can be advantageous during times when smaller markets outperform the larger ones, but it also means increased exposure to the volatility of these smaller markets.
CMDY VS GCC: Tracking and Exposure
How these ETFs track their underlying commodities and the exposure they offer also contribute to their distinctiveness.
This ETF typically provides a direct exposure by holding the commodities themselves or through futures contracts. This direct approach might lead to more accurate tracking but can also result in higher costs due to rollovers and management of these contracts.
Unlike CMDY, GCC uses a combination of futures contracts for different maturities. This laddered approach can help in minimizing the impact of negative roll yields, potentially offering a smoother return profile. However, it might not capture short-term movements as effectively as CMDY.
Conclusion
Choosing between CMDY and GCC boils down to an investor's risk tolerance, investment horizon, and belief in specific commodities. CMDY, with its market cap-based strategy, offers a more traditional and perhaps straightforward approach. Its performance might be more influenced by the leading commodities markets.
In contrast, GCC, with its equal-weight strategy, offers a unique proposition, ensuring that no single commodity drives the fund's performance. This can be both a boon and a bane, depending on market conditions.
As with any investment decision, it's crucial to conduct thorough research, understand the underlying strategies, and consider how each ETF aligns with one's financial goals. Both CMDY and GCC offer avenues to gain exposure to the commodities market, but the path they pave is inherently different.
CMDY ETF issuer
CMDY ETF official page
CMDY quote and analysis
Discover the top holdings, correlations, and overlaps of ETFs using our visualization tool.
Our app allows you to build and track your portfolio.
To learn more about the CMDY iShares Bloomberg Roll Select Commodity Strategy ETF, access our dedicated page now.