Latest news with #GRNY
CNBC
11-07-2025
- Business
- CNBC
Tom Lee's Granny Shots ETF is crushing the market and raking in cash
Tom Lee's Fundstrat Capital rose to prominence with timely macroeconomic calls on the market, and now his new ETF is flexing the firm's stock picking prowess. The Fundstrat Granny Shots US Large Cap ETF (GRNY) is quickly emerging as one of the most popular and successful active stock funds of the year. The fund hit $1.5 billion in assets under management just eight months after its launch last November, rapidly growing in an industry where some funds take years to reach 10% of that level. Performance has also been excellent so far compared to peers and a benchmark index. The fund has outperformed the MSCI USA Large Cap Index since inception, 13.7% to 7.8%, according to FactSet. Measured by Morningstar, the fund's return of about 14% this year is in the top three percent in its category, which includes nearly 1,400 other funds. "It's definitely been a positive surprise because we know how crowded the space is. ... This product really seems to be connecting with people, and from the comments we've received ... people have been buying it regularly, so they're not doing it as a one-time speculative purchase," Lee told CNBC about the fund's growth. The "granny shot" in the title is a reference to shooting a basketball free throw underhanded. For Fundstrat, it means a stock that falls under multiple key investment themes which the firm is tracking that drive earnings growth. Those themes include energy and cyber security, an AI-category called global labor suppliers, and the impact of millennials. "The strategy may not look flashy — but it's grounded in a disciplined, rules-based process designed to increase the likelihood of consistent results over time," the fund's website says. The result is a portfolio of about 35 S&P 500 stocks, rebalanced every three months. Top holdings currently include Robinhood, Oracle and Advanced Micro Devices. Picking stocks that fall under multiple themes helps the fund stand up under changing market moods, Lee said. "A stock that's both an AI story and tied to millennials then has a better chance of outperforming, because at any moment AI may not be in favor, but millennials might, so you're improving your chances of continuous outperformance," Lee said. The next step will be sustaining the outperformance over the long-term, which has tripped up many star fund managers in the past. Lee said he believes the focus on long-term trends and earnings growth gives this strategy staying power. "I think the idea of using a thematic approach and thinking about the story arcs that last a long time to find the stocks [that] outperform, I think that's what's really resonated with us. I think that is how you can still outperform," Lee said. The Granny Shots fund has an expense ratio of 0.75%.
Yahoo
10-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Fundstrat Capital's GRNY ETF Surpasses $1.5 Billion in AUM, Posts 13.40% Return Since Inception
NEW YORK, July 10, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Fundstrat Capital has announced that the Fundstrat Granny Shots U.S. Large Cap ETF (NYSE: GRNY) has surpassed $1.5 billion in assets under management (AUM). Since its launch on November 7, 2024, GRNY has delivered a 13.40% return as of June 30, 2025. "Reaching $1.5 billion in AUM is an important milestone and we appreciate the support and trust from those investing in Granny Shots ($GRNY)." said Tom Lee, CIO and Portfolio Manager at Fundstrat Capital. "Many GRNY holders told us they appreciate our weekly videos, which provide the clarity regarding our decisions around holdings as well as our take on the macro and markets generally." GRNY's investment framework blends long-term structural themes—including millennial-driven demand, technological innovation, and monetary easing—with shorter-term tactical signals such as style rotation and shifts in PMI. For more information about the Fundstrat Granny Shots ETF, contact inquiry@ Performance data quoted represents past performance and does not guarantee future results. Investment return and principal value will fluctuate so that an investor's shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. For the most recent month-end and standardized performance data, please visit Before investing you should carefully consider the Fund's investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. This and other information is in the prospectus. Please read the prospectuses carefully before you invest. Investing involves risk. Principal loss is possible. The principal risks of investing in the Fund are summarized below. As with any investment, there is a risk that you could lose all or a portion of your investment in the Fund. Some or all of these risks may adversely affect the Fund's net asset value per share ("NAV"), trading price, yield, total return, and/or ability to meet its investment objective. For more information about the risks of investing in the Fund, see the section in the Fund's Prospectus titled "Additional Information About the Fund-Principal Risks of Investing in the Fund." Equity Market Risk. Common stocks are generally exposed to greater risk than other types of securities, such as preferred stock and debt obligations, because common stockholders generally have inferior rights to receive payment from specific issuers. Models and Data Risk. The composition of the Fund's portfolio is heavily dependent on investment models developed by the Sub-Adviser as well as information and data supplied by third parties ("Models and Data"). When Models and Data prove to be incorrect or incomplete, any decisions made in reliance thereon may lead to the inclusion or exclusion of securities from the Fund's portfolio that would have been excluded or included had the Models and Data been correct and complete. Operational Risk. The Fund is subject to risks arising from various operational factors, including, but not limited to, human error, processing and communication errors of the Fund's service providers, counter parties or other third-parties, failed or inadequate processes and technology or systems failures. The Fund relies on third-parties for a range of services, including custody. New Fund Risk. The Fund is a recently organized management investment company with no operating history. As a result, prospective investors do not have a track record or history on which to base their investment decisions. Distributed by Foreside Fund Services, LLC. Foreside is not related to Tidal or Fundstrat. View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Fundstrat Capital Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Famed analysts and investors have been putting their names on ETFs. Here's what it takes for a fund to succeed.
ETF launches continue to surge, with some popular market voices putting their names on funds. Starting an ETF involves significant expenses, including SEC filing and listing fees. Funds need strong performance and substantial assets under management to remain viable. A string of widely followed strategists, economists, and investors have launched exchange-traded funds in recent years. There's famed NYU professor Nouriel Roubini — known colloquially as "Dr. Doom" — and his Atlas America Fund (USAF). Then there's Dan Ives — the tech and AI permabull who can often be found on CNBC wearing fluorescent blazers — who has parlayed his bold analyst calls into the Wedbush AI Revolution ETF (IVES). And let's not forget Fundstrat's Tom Lee — former chief equity strategist at JPMorgan — and his Granny Shots US Large Cap ETF (GRNY). They've stepped into a crowded market with thousands of funds competing for investors' money. A record 723 ETFs came to market in 2024 alone. And they're using their own high-profile personal brands to stand out in a crowded marketplace. But starting a fund is an entirely different beast than keeping one afloat for any sustained amount of time. Yes, strong performance is crucial. But running a fund is expensive, and it takes much more than good returns to ensure success. To start, the cost to launch a fund is hefty. Firms are looking at a $50,000-to-$100,000 filing fee with the SEC, according to Zachary Evans, analyst for passive strategies at Morningstar. puts that number between $100,000 and $500,000. Depending on the type of fund, there also may be an initial listing fee with NYSE or Nasdaq. But the bills don't stop there. Listing fees with the exchange come due every year. With Nasdaq, for example, it's a $4,000 annual fee. Then there's a long list of costs associated with running the fund itself, Evans said. Paying the staff who execute the trades. Paying compliance and a risk-management team. Paying sales and advertising teams to market the fund. Paying rent for your office space. And so on. It all adds up, and it means funds need to amass significant assets under management. ETF providers make money through the annual fees, or expense ratios, they charge investors. So the more money they manage, the more money they're bringing in. Performance also plays a role here — if a fund's value rises by 20% in a year, the fees it extracts will be 20% higher. "This can vary quite a bit, but a baseline number we've heard is that it should cost around $200,000 a year to run an ETF," Evans told BI. "More complicated strategies will cost more, simpler strategies will cost less, or if it's from a large firm that has economies of scale, it might cost less as well." He added: "Say an ETF charges 50 basis points with annual expenses of $200,000 a year. You need $40 million AUM in order to break even on that product." For some funds, there's also pressure associated with seed money. When an ETF launches, Evans said it might have some investors who promise to keep their capital locked up in the fund for a set period of time — say two or three years. Once that period ends, if the investors pull their money, it can be an existential threat to a fund if they haven't pulled in enough money from elsewhere. "Once that seed money dries up, in order for them to endure, they need to make sure they have enough investor interest, enough assets to sustain them," Evans said. Fund closures are increasingly common. Evans said a little more than 200 closed in 2023 — a record — and just under 200 closed in 2024. "As more companies are launching their products, more companies are closing down their products — the vast majority of which have really failed to catch on with investors," Evans said. "They've failed to generate either the performance or, in effect, the asset level to support these products." Read the original article on Business Insider Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Famed analysts and investors have been putting their names on ETFs. Here's what it takes for a fund to succeed.
ETF launches continue to surge, with some popular market voices putting their names on funds. Starting an ETF involves significant expenses, including SEC filing and listing fees. Funds need strong performance and substantial assets under management to remain viable. A string of widely followed strategists, economists, and investors have launched exchange-traded funds in recent years. There's famed NYU professor Nouriel Roubini — known colloquially as "Dr. Doom" — and his Atlas America Fund (USAF). Then there's Dan Ives — the tech and AI permabull who can often be found on CNBC wearing fluorescent blazers — who has parlayed his bold analyst calls into the Wedbush AI Revolution ETF (IVES). And let's not forget Fundstrat's Tom Lee — former chief equity strategist at JPMorgan — and his Granny Shots US Large Cap ETF (GRNY). They've stepped into a crowded market with thousands of funds competing for investors' money. A record 723 ETFs came to market in 2024 alone. And they're using their own high-profile personal brands to stand out in a crowded marketplace. But starting a fund is an entirely different beast than keeping one afloat for any sustained amount of time. Yes, strong performance is crucial. But running a fund is expensive, and it takes much more than good returns to ensure success. To start, the cost to launch a fund is hefty. Firms are looking at a $50,000-to-$100,000 filing fee with the SEC, according to Zachary Evans, analyst for passive strategies at Morningstar. puts that number between $100,000 and $500,000. Depending on the type of fund, there also may be an initial listing fee with NYSE or Nasdaq. But the bills don't stop there. Listing fees with the exchange come due every year. With Nasdaq, for example, it's a $4,000 annual fee. Then there's a long list of costs associated with running the fund itself, Evans said. Paying the staff who execute the trades. Paying compliance and a risk-management team. Paying sales and advertising teams to market the fund. Paying rent for your office space. And so on. It all adds up, and it means funds need to amass significant assets under management. ETF providers make money through the annual fees, or expense ratios, they charge investors. So the more money they manage, the more money they're bringing in. Performance also plays a role here — if a fund's value rises by 20% in a year, the fees it extracts will be 20% higher. "This can vary quite a bit, but a baseline number we've heard is that it should cost around $200,000 a year to run an ETF," Evans told BI. "More complicated strategies will cost more, simpler strategies will cost less, or if it's from a large firm that has economies of scale, it might cost less as well." He added: "Say an ETF charges 50 basis points with annual expenses of $200,000 a year. You need $40 million AUM in order to break even on that product." For some funds, there's also pressure associated with seed money. When an ETF launches, Evans said it might have some investors who promise to keep their capital locked up in the fund for a set period of time — say two or three years. Once that period ends, if the investors pull their money, it can be an existential threat to a fund if they haven't pulled in enough money from elsewhere. "Once that seed money dries up, in order for them to endure, they need to make sure they have enough investor interest, enough assets to sustain them," Evans said. Fund closures are increasingly common. Evans said a little more than 200 closed in 2023 — a record — and just under 200 closed in 2024. "As more companies are launching their products, more companies are closing down their products — the vast majority of which have really failed to catch on with investors," Evans said. "They've failed to generate either the performance or, in effect, the asset level to support these products." Read the original article on Business Insider Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Business Insider
13-06-2025
- Business
- Business Insider
Famed analysts and investors have been putting their names on ETFs. Here's what it takes for a fund to succeed.
A string of widely followed strategists, economists, and investors have launched exchange-traded funds in recent years. There's famed NYU professor Nouriel Roubini — known colloquially as " Dr. Doom" — and his Atlas America Fund (USAF). Then there's Dan Ives — the tech and AI permabull who can often be found on CNBC wearing fluorescent blazers — who has parlayed his bold analyst calls into the Wedbush AI Revolution ETF (IVES). And let's not forget Fundstrat's Tom Lee — former chief equity strategist at JPMorgan — and his Granny Shots US Large Cap ETF (GRNY). They've stepped into a crowded market with thousands of funds competing for investors' money. A record 723 ETFs came to market in 2024 alone. And they're using their own high-profile personal brands to stand out in a crowded marketplace. But starting a fund is an entirely different beast than keeping one afloat for any sustained amount of time. Yes, strong performance is crucial. But running a fund is expensive, and it takes much more than good returns to ensure success. To start, the cost to launch a fund is hefty. Firms are looking at a $50,000-to-$100,000 filing fee with the SEC, according to Zachary Evans, analyst for passive strategies at Morningstar. puts that number between $100,000 and $500,000. Depending on the type of fund, there also may be an initial listing fee with NYSE or Nasdaq. But the bills don't stop there. Listing fees with the exchange come due every year. With Nasdaq, for example, it's a $4,000 annual fee. Then there's a long list of costs associated with running the fund itself, Evans said. Paying the staff who execute the trades. Paying compliance and a risk-management team. Paying sales and advertising teams to market the fund. Paying rent for your office space. And so on. It all adds up, and it means funds need to amass significant assets under management. ETF providers make money through the annual fees, or expense ratios, they charge investors. So the more money they manage, the more money they're bringing in. Performance also plays a role here — if a fund's value rises by 20% in a year, the fees it extracts will be 20% higher. "This can vary quite a bit, but a baseline number we've heard is that it should cost around $200,000 a year to run an ETF," Evans told BI. "More complicated strategies will cost more, simpler strategies will cost less, or if it's from a large firm that has economies of scale, it might cost less as well." He added: "Say an ETF charges 50 basis points with annual expenses of $200,000 a year. You need $40 million AUM in order to break even on that product." For some funds, there's also pressure associated with seed money. When an ETF launches, Evans said it might have some investors who promise to keep their capital locked up in the fund for a set period of time — say two or three years. Once that period ends, if the investors pull their money, it can be an existential threat to a fund if they haven't pulled in enough money from elsewhere. "Once that seed money dries up, in order for them to endure, they need to make sure they have enough investor interest, enough assets to sustain them," Evans said. Fund closures are increasingly common. Evans said a little more than 200 closed in 2023 — a record — and just under 200 closed in 2024. "As more companies are launching their products, more companies are closing down their products — the vast majority of which have really failed to catch on with investors," Evans said. "They've failed to generate either the performance or, in effect, the asset level to support these products."
