Moineauworld

Tag: CNBC

Gen Z’s Thematic ETF Mania: Risks | Analysis by Brian Moineau

Posted on by Brian Moineau

TL;DR

  • Thematic ETFs are back with Gen Z: roughly $76 billion of net inflows since December 2024, with about one-third into AI-linked funds, while Morningstar’s fee and persistence data suggest most themes lag broad markets over time. [1][2]
  • Duplication is the hidden risk: the S&P 500’s top 10 holdings sit near 37.8% weight and the Nasdaq‑100’s top 10 near 52%, so many “AI” or “tech” themes just repackage Microsoft, Apple, and NVIDIA at higher fees. [3][4]
  • Daily ETF transparency is no longer guaranteed: semi‑transparent active ETFs don’t publish full holdings every day, so “look under the hood” isn’t a one-click promise for hot themes. [5][6]

What the source said

CNBC reports that investors—especially Gen Z—are returning to thematic ETFs (AI, space, infrastructure) after pulling back during 2022–2024 drawdowns, with Morningstar tallying about $95 billion of theme inflows in 2020–2021 and another $76 billion since December 2024, roughly one‑third tagged to AI funds. [1][2]

Nasdaq’s 2024 Retail ETF Investor survey of 2,000 investors (±2% margin) found 75% of Gen Z hold ETFs in retirement accounts and 34% show interest in thematics, confirming demand for “expressive” exposures. [1][16]

Todd Rosenbluth of TMX VettaFi told CNBC that themes can complement diversified cores but warned on fees, holdings, and overlap, echoing the “don’t just re-buy Apple and Microsoft” caution. [1]

Why it matters

For Gen Z savers using 401(k)s, IRAs, or broker apps, thematic ETFs offer targeted exposure to trends like AI and infrastructure, but they often carry higher expense ratios near 0.60% versus roughly 0.40% for broad funds, plus elevated closure risk. [2][7]

For issuers and index providers such as BlackRock and Global X, themes are fee engines: concentration in the S&P 500 (top‑10 near 37.8%) and Nasdaq‑100 (top‑10 near 52%) means “AI” wrappers can sell investors what they already own—just at higher fees. [2][3][4]

Original analysis

Consensus view: “Thematic ETFs help investors ‘double‑click’ structural trends and complement a core.” That’s true in theory, but fees, concentration, and survival bias do most of the damage in practice.

Back‑of‑envelope calculation

  • Flows: CNBC cites $76B into themes since Dec 2024; assume one‑third to AI ≈ $25B. [1]
  • Fees: If thematics average ~0.60% versus non‑thematics near ~0.41% (2020 asset‑weighted), then new AI fee revenue ≈ $25B × 0.60% ≈ $150M per year—before any market gains. [7]
  • Investor math: A 30–60 bps fee gap over 10 years on $10,000 is roughly $300–$600 in cumulative drag before compounding, and worse if the theme overlaps with S&P 500/Nasdaq‑100 exposures you already hold. [2][3][7]

2x2 framework: How to pick a thematic ETF that actually adds something

  • Low overlap + Low fee (<0.40–0.50%): Sweet Spot. Look for mid‑caps, global suppliers, and niche enablers absent from VOO/QQQ.
  • Low overlap + High fee (≥0.60–0.95%): Maybe. Demand clear index rules, sane capacity, and credible liquidity.
  • High overlap + Low fee: Meh Core‑Plus. Consider equal‑weight or factor alternatives that diversify away from mega‑cap concentration.
  • High overlap + High fee: Worst Box. Avoid “story wrappers” that mirror Mag‑7 with a pricier label.

Why duplication risk is bigger now

  • Index concentration is historically elevated: the S&P 500’s top‑10 weight is ~37.8%, and the Nasdaq‑100’s top‑10 reached ~52% at year‑end 2025, so many AI themes just stack NVIDIA, Microsoft, Alphabet, Meta, and Amazon. [3][4]
  • Morningstar’s “7 charts” shows 66% of US thematic funds tilt “growth” versus only 11% “value,” compounding the same factor bets already embedded in cap‑weighted indexes. [2]

Historical analogue: the clean‑tech and cannabis cycles

  • Clean‑energy ETFs like ICLN and TAN peaked in 2021 and then slumped as rates rose; Morningstar chronicles multi‑fold AUM drawdowns and sharp volatility in 2022–2023. [8][9]
  • Cannabis ETFs (e.g., MJ) surged in 2018–2020 and then reversed, with ETF.com documenting episodes of odd premiums/discounts and fragile liquidity during stress. [10][11]
  • Morningstar Indexes finds limited persistence in thematic leadership, with rotation across horizons rather than steady outperformance. [12]

Contrarian read

  • The crowd says “Buy AI‑thematic ETFs to ride the secular boom,” but a better sleeve may exclude the Mag‑7 and focus on picks‑and‑shovels like power equipment, specialty chemicals, memory, testing, and grid software—areas many AI indexes underweight. [2][3][4]

Named‑stakeholder breakdown

  • BlackRock, Global X, Roundhill: Gather assets now, collect 0.50%–0.95% fees, and shutter stragglers later if flows fade. [2]
  • Nasdaq (survey publisher) and VettaFi (research/distribution): Their data and models seed product launches and model portfolios that steer retail flows. [1][2]
  • SEC and investor‑education shops: Semi‑transparent active ETFs complicate the “daily holdings” promise, so disclosure and basket policies remain under scrutiny in 2026. [5][6]

What others are missing

Holdings transparency is no longer binary: semi‑transparent active ETFs with proxy baskets don’t publish full daily portfolios, weakening the investor shortcut of “just run an overlap check” on a website. [5][6]

In thematics, where index IP, reconstitution cadence, and trading liquidity are the paid edge, partial transparency makes it harder to see if a fund drifted toward Mag‑7 concentration or quietly upped turnover to chase narrative names. [5][6]

What to watch next

  1. By December 31, 2026, closures: At least 10 US‑listed thematic ETFs will liquidate or merge as flows consolidate into a few AI and infrastructure leaders, consistent with elevated post‑2021 closure trends. [2]

  2. By Q2 2027, fees: A top‑5 AI‑thematic ETF by AUM will cut its expense ratio below 0.39% as performance dispersion grows and price competition intensifies within “premium” niches. [13][14]

  3. By June 30, 2027, overlap: The average top‑10 holding overlap between the five largest AI‑thematic ETFs and the S&P 500 will fall by at least 25% from current levels as issuers retool indexes toward purer picks‑and‑shovels exposure. [3][15]

My take

I’d cap a Gen Z “sandbox” at 5%–10% of the portfolio, after maxing tax‑advantaged accounts and building a low‑cost core like VTI/VOO plus VXUS/IXUS with a plain bond sleeve. [2]

Inside the sandbox, I’d avoid Mag‑7‑heavy AI wrappers and target under‑owned beneficiaries—power gear, memory, testing, industrial software—while capping fees at 0.50% and checking overlap quarterly with tools like ETF Research Center. [3][15]

If a theme can’t prove distinct exposure, disciplined methodology, and fair pricing, it doesn’t earn a slot—because the story you buy should differ from the story you already own. [2][3]

Sources

  1. These Gen Z‑approved investment funds are having a moment — CNBC (https://www.cnbc.com/2026/09/21/themed-etfs-gen-z-investors.html) — News peg, flow figures ($95B in 2020–2021; $76B since Dec 2024; ~one‑third to AI) and Rosenbluth’s guidance.
  2. The Thematic Fund Landscape in 7 Charts — Morningstar (https://www.morningstar.com/funds/thematic-fund-landscape-7-charts) — Growth bias (66% vs 11%), survival risks, asset history, and fee differentials.
  3. S&P 500 — S&P Dow Jones Indices (https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/indices/equity/sp-500/) — Concentration data; Top‑10 weight around 37.8% for duplication context.
  4. 2025 Nasdaq‑100 Reconstitution and Performance Highlights — Nasdaq (https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/global-indexes/2025-nasdaq-100-reconstitution-and-performance-highlights) — Top‑10 weight near 52% at 2025 year‑end.
  5. Exchange‑Traded Funds: A Small Entity Compliance Guide — SEC.gov (https://www.sec.gov/investment/exchange-traded-funds-small-entity-compliance-guide) — ETF Rule 6c‑11 and disclosure mechanics.
  6. Active Semi‑Transparent ETFs: What’s Under the Hood? — Charles Schwab (https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/active-semi-transparent-etfs-whats-under-hood) — Why semi‑transparent active ETFs don’t publish full daily holdings.
  7. Morningstar Finds Falling Fees Saved Investors $6.2 Billion in 2020 — Morningstar (https://newsroom.morningstar.com/news/news-details/2021/Morningstar-Finds-Falling-Fees-Saved-Investors-6-2-Billion-in-2020/default.aspx) — Asset‑weighted expense ratios (0.61% thematic vs 0.41% non‑thematic in 2020).
  8. Why Are Climate Funds in the Dumps? — Morningstar (https://www.morningstar.com/sustainable-investing/why-are-climate-funds-dumps) — Clean‑energy ETF slump post‑2021.
  9. The Election Is One More Headache for US Clean Energy ETFs — Morningstar Canada (https://global.morningstar.com/en-ca/etfs/election-is-one-more-headache-us-clean-energy-etfs) — ICLN and TAN boom‑bust AUM patterns.
  10. US Marijuana ETF Boom Stalls — ETF.com (https://www.etf.com/sections/news/us-marijuana-etf-boom-stalls) — Cannabis ETF surge and reversal chronology.
  11. UPDATE: Strange Case Of Premiums For Pot ETF — ETF.com (https://www.etf.com/sections/news/update-strange-case-premiums-pot-etf) — Premium/discount behavior during narrative spikes.
  12. Thematic Investing: Performance and Rotation Insights — Morningstar Indexes (https://index-website-frontend-prd.mif0286.eas.morningstar.com/insights/analysis/bltfe9deb5617110ea2/thematic-investing-performance-and-rotation-insights) — Leadership rotation and limited persistence.
  13. Fund Fee Wars Shift to Complex Funds and New Strategies — Morningstar (https://www.morningstar.com/en-us/business/insights/blog/us-fund-fee-study) — Fee competition spreading into higher‑fee ETF niches.
  14. How Active ETFs Are Reshaping Fund Fees — Morningstar (https://www.morningstar.com/funds/how-active-etfs-are-reshaping-fund-fees) — 2025 fee trends and pricing pressure within ETFs.
  15. Fund Overlap Tool — ETF Research Center (https://www.etfrc.com/funds/overlap.php) — Quantifies duplication between thematic ETFs and core holdings.
  16. Nasdaq 2024 ETF Retail Survey Report — Nasdaq (https://www.nasdaq.com/docs/2025/06/18/2024-ETF-Retail-Survey-Report.pdf) — Survey methodology (2,000 respondents; ±2%) and Gen Z interest metrics.