Education
About Us
Working with TipRanks
Follow Us
RSPD - AI Analysis
Top Page
Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Consumer Discretionary ETF (RSPD)
Rating:69Neutral
Price Target:
$61.00
Positive Factors
Strong Top Holdings
Several key holdings, such as Tesla and Tapestry, have delivered strong year-to-date performance, supporting the ETF’s overall returns.
Focused Sector Exposure
The ETF’s heavy allocation to consumer discretionary stocks allows investors to benefit from potential growth in this sector.
Reasonable Expense Ratio
The fund’s expense ratio is competitive for a specialized ETF, helping investors retain more of their returns.
Negative Factors
Sector Concentration Risk
With nearly all assets in consumer discretionary stocks, the ETF is highly exposed to risks specific to this sector.
Mixed Holding Performance
Some top holdings, like Chipotle and Lululemon, have underperformed year-to-date, which could drag on overall returns.
Limited Geographic Diversification
The ETF is entirely focused on U.S. companies, offering no exposure to international markets for diversification.
RSPD vs. SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY)
AUM220.08M
RegionNorth America
Expense Ratio0.40%
Beta0.94
IssuerInvesco
Inception DateNov 01, 2006
Dividend Yield1.09%
Asset ClassEquity
Index TrackedS&P 500 Equal Weighted / Consumer Discretionary -SEC
Share Statistics
EPS (TTM)N/A
Shares OutstandingN/A
10 Day Avg. Volume32,667
30 Day Avg. Volume32,302
Financial Highlights & Ratios
PEG RatioN/A
Price to Book (P/B)N/A
Price to Sales (P/S)N/A
P/FCF RatioN/A
Enterprise Value/Market CapN/A
Enterprise Value/RevenueN/A
Enterprise Value/Gross ProfitN/A
Enterprise Value/EbitdaN/A
Forecast
1Y Price Target
64.08Price Target Upside― Downside
Rating ConsensusModerate Buy
Number of Analyst Covering51
RSPD Summary
The Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Consumer Discretionary ETF (RSPD) is a fund that focuses on companies in the consumer discretionary sector, which includes businesses like retail, automotive, and leisure services. It uses an equal weight strategy, meaning every company in the fund has the same influence on its performance. Some well-known companies in this ETF are Tesla and Chipotle. Investors might consider RSPD for diversification and to benefit from growth in industries tied to consumer spending. However, since it focuses on consumer discretionary stocks, its performance can be affected by changes in consumer habits or economic downturns.
How much will it cost me?The Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Consumer Discretionary ETF (RSPD) has an expense ratio of 0.40%, meaning you’ll pay $4 per year for every $1,000 invested. This cost is slightly higher than average for ETFs because it uses an equal-weight strategy, which requires more active management compared to passively managed funds that track market-cap weighted indices.
What would affect this ETF?The RSPD ETF could benefit from strong consumer spending trends, particularly in the U.S., as well as innovations in the automotive and retail industries, which are key areas of focus for its holdings. However, economic challenges like rising interest rates or a potential recession could negatively impact consumer discretionary spending, which is cyclical and sensitive to broader economic conditions. Regulatory changes or supply chain disruptions affecting top holdings like Tesla or Ford could also pose risks to the fund's performance.
RSPD Top 10 Holdings
The Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Consumer Discretionary ETF is riding the wave of consumer spending, with standout performers like Best Buy and Ralph Lauren driving gains thanks to strong earnings and strategic initiatives. Tesla remains a steady contributor, though its high valuation could spark volatility. On the flip side, Chipotle and Lululemon are lagging, weighed down by valuation concerns and mixed technical indicators. With a clear focus on U.S. consumer discretionary stocks, the fund offers balanced exposure across retail, automotive, and leisure, making it a compelling choice for those betting on consumer resilience.
Name | Company Name | Weight % | Market Value | Market Cap | Yearly Gain | Overall Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tesla | 2.66% | $5.68M | $1.46T | 76.14% | 73 Outperform | |
| General Motors | 2.52% | $5.38M | $64.06B | 35.28% | 75 Outperform | |
| Ford Motor | 2.41% | $5.14M | $52.04B | 26.92% | 74 Outperform | |
| Best Buy Co | 2.28% | $4.88M | $17.48B | -8.02% | 71 Outperform | |
| Las Vegas Sands | 2.28% | $4.86M | $39.86B | 13.69% | 74 Outperform | |
| Ross Stores | 2.23% | $4.76M | $51.41B | 13.13% | 75 Outperform | |
| Tapestry | 2.23% | $4.75M | $23.05B | 134.71% | 64 Neutral | |
| Ralph Lauren | 2.17% | $4.64M | $19.56B | 63.13% | 81 Outperform | |
| Lululemon Athletica | 2.16% | $4.60M | $20.78B | -43.60% | 67 Neutral | |
| Airbnb | 2.15% | $4.60M | $78.51B | -6.27% | 77 Outperform |
RSPD Technical Analysis
Negative
―
Price Trends
57.56
Negative
56.13
Negative
53.65
Positive
Market Momentum
-0.34
Positive
37.62
Neutral
7.45
Positive
Evaluating momentum and price trends is crucial in ETF analysis to make informed investment decisions. For RSPD, the sentiment is Negative. The current price of undefined is equal to the 20-day moving average (MA) of 56.49, equal to the 50-day MA of 57.56, and equal to the 200-day MA of 53.65, indicating a neutral trend. The MACD of -0.34 indicates Positive momentum. The RSI at 37.62 is Neutral, neither overbought nor oversold. The STOCH value of 7.45 is Positive, not indicating any strong overbought or oversold conditions. Overall, these indicators collectively point to a Negative sentiment for RSPD.
RSPD Peer Comparison
Comparison Results
Performance Comparison
RSPD
Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Consumer Discretionary ETF
55.30
4.63
9.14%
IETC
iShares Evolved US Technology ETF
―
―
―
FXH
First Trust Health Care AlphaDEX Fund
―
―
―
XRT
SPDR S&P Retail ETF
―
―
―
PEJ
Invesco Dynamic Leisure & Entertainment ETF
―
―
―
FXD
First Trust Consumer Discretionary AlphaDEX Fund
―
―
―
Glossary
BuyAn ETF rated as a "Buy" is expected to perform better than the overall market or a specific benchmark over the near-to-medium term. This rating suggests the ETF is likely to deliver higher returns compared to other ETFs in the same sector or market index. Note: This is not investment advice; please consult a financial advisor before making investment decisions.
HoldAn ETF rated as a "Hold" s expected to perform in line with the overall market or a specific benchmark. This rating indicates that the ETF is neither particularly compelling nor unfavorable for investment. Note: This is not investment advice; please consult a financial advisor before making investment decisions.
SellAn ETF rated as a "Sell" is expected to perform worse than the overall market or a specific benchmark over the near-to-medium term. This rating suggests the ETF may deliver lower returns compared to other ETFs in the same sector or market index. Note: This is not investment advice; please consult a financial advisor before making investment decisions.
Disclaimer
This AI Analyst ETF Report is automatically generated by our AI systems using advanced algorithms and publicly available financial, technical, and market data. While the information provided aims to be accurate and insightful, it is intended for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial advice. Any content created by an AI (Artificial Intelligence) system may contain inaccuracies and/or contain errors. Investing in ETFs carries inherent risks, and past performance is not indicative of future results. This report does not account for your personal financial circumstances, objectives, or risk tolerance. Always conduct your own research or consult with a qualified financial advisor before making investment decisions. The analysis and recommendations provided are based on historical and current data and may not fully reflect future market conditions or unexpected developments. Neither the creators of this report nor its affiliated entities guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of the information presented. Use this report at your own discretion and risk.Date of analysis: ―
Table of Contents