IJT(IJT)
AI Look-Through Summary
AI GeneratedThe IJT ETF presents a distinct structural anomaly given its substantial $6.5 billion in assets under management relative to the extremely low sector weights reported for Industrials at 2.0% and Technology at 1.0%. This discrepancy suggests that the fund's classification methodology or reporting granularity may not fully capture the actual economic activities of its underlying constituents, as the top ten holdings represent a significant portion of the portfolio while contributing minimally to these specific category allocations under current definitions. The concentration risk is notable when observing individual position sizes; for instance, VIAV and SANM each account for 1.5% and 1.4% respectively, indicating that despite the broad label implied by such large assets, a small number of companies drive significant exposure.
Geographically, the provided data lacks specific regional breakdowns, preventing an assessment of domestic versus international tilt, though the presence of industrial-focused names like AGX and ECG alongside technology entities like FORM hints at a potential global manufacturing or hardware orientation rather than pure software services. The quantitative metrics reveal a portfolio where diversification appears nominal based on sector tags alone; if these holdings are indeed heavily weighted toward industrials and tech as their primary business lines, the reported 2% and 1% weights likely reflect narrow sub-sectors or outdated classifications that do not align with standard industry groupings used by major data providers. Investors examining this instrument must reconcile the massive asset size with the seemingly sparse sector exposure to understand whether the fund truly offers broad industrial coverage or if its categorization requires deeper scrutiny against actual business operations of the top ten names listed.
Generated by Qwen-32B from constituent-level data. Not investment advice. Updated: 2026-05-24 03:31:02.806674+00
🔍 Theme Alignment Audit
AI GeneratedPurity: 45/100The thematic alignment between the ETF's name implying a focus on industrials and its actual portfolio composition reveals significant divergence. While several top holdings fall under the Industrials sector, including AGX and ECG, the majority of positions such as VIAV, SANM, FORM, PRIM, VSAT, ESE, POWL, ZWS, and others are listed without a specific industrial classification or belong to Technology. This lack of explicit sector tagging for most major constituents suggests that the fund may not be strictly adhering to an industrials-only mandate, potentially incorporating broader technology exposure under vague categorizations. The presence of companies like VIAV and ESE alongside unclassified tech stocks indicates a portfolio structure where the stated industrial theme is diluted by assets whose primary association lies elsewhere or remains undefined within this specific dataset.
Sector coherence appears weak given that Industrials represent only 2.0% of the total allocation while Technology accounts for just 1.0%, with the remainder effectively unallocated to these core sectors in the provided breakdown. Such a fragmented sector distribution challenges the narrative of a concentrated industrial play, as the fund relies heavily on holdings that do not clearly map to traditional manufacturing or infrastructure themes often associated with such labels. The low top-ten concentration of 11.3% further suggests an attempt at diversification across non-industrial names rather than deep specialization in the target theme. Consequently, the portfolio exhibits characteristics more akin to a broad-based small-cap blend that happens to include some industrial firms, rather than a vehicle designed to capture pure sector-specific trends or outperform through thematic concentration.
AI analysis of holdings alignment vs fund theme. Not investment advice. Updated: 2026-05-19 16:04:47.544005+00
🏢 Sector Analysis
AI GeneratedThe sector allocation profile of this ETF reveals an almost exclusive concentration within the Industrials and Technology sectors, with these two categories comprising a negligible 3.0% of total assets based on the provided breakdown. This starkly contrasts with typical broad-based industrial or technology funds, suggesting that the fund's investment thesis is not driven by macro-sector exposure but rather by specific equity selection criteria. The presence of holdings like VIAV, SANM, and FORM in the top five positions indicates a deliberate tilt toward companies within the communications equipment and semiconductor sub-sectors, which are often categorized under Technology or Industrials depending on classification standards. This narrow focus implies that the fund manager is targeting a niche segment of the market characterized by high growth potential but also heightened volatility relative to diversified industrial peers.
Concentration risk remains a defining feature of this portfolio structure, as evidenced by the top-10 concentration metric of 11.3%. While this figure appears low at first glance for an equity fund, it must be contextualized against the fact that the provided data only lists five specific holdings and two sector buckets that collectively represent a tiny fraction of the total universe. If these are indeed the primary drivers of the portfolio's performance, the effective risk is concentrated in a very small number of issuers rather than spread across hundreds. The inclusion of AGX within the Industrials slice further highlights a potential thematic overlay focused on materials or specialized manufacturing inputs that support high-tech infrastructure. Ultimately, this allocation strategy suggests an investment vehicle designed for investors seeking aggressive exposure to specific supply chain components rather than broad sector diversification, leaving returns and risks heavily dependent on the performance of these select names.
AI-generated sector analysis from constituent-level data. Not investment advice. Updated: 2026-05-23 21:26:53.509199+00
Flow Driver Analysis
2-Step CircleWhich larger ETFs share IJT's holdings — and mechanically drive its price through index rebalancing flows?
Approximately 45% of IJT's weight flows through these larger ETFs
| Driver ETF | AUM | Expense | Shared Stocks | Weight Overlap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SPSMSPSM | $14B | — | 10 | 11.3% |
| SPTMSPTM | $12B | — | 10 | 11.3% |
| VXFVXF | $84B | — | 10 | 11.3% |
| SLYGSLYG | $4B | — | 10 | 11.3% |
| VTWOVTWO | $15B | — | 9 | 10.4% |
11% of IJT's portfolio by weight is also held by SPSM, which commands 2× more assets under management. When SPSM receives inflows, it mechanically buys these shared stocks — dragging IJT's NAV along regardless of any thematic or sector catalyst. Combined, the top 5 overlapping ETFs control exposure to 56% ofIJT's weight.
Overlap computed from constituent-level holdings data across 5 ETFs. Price co-movement with driver ETFs is structural, not coincidental. Not investment advice.
ETF Look-Through Dashboard
Replaces $249/yr MorningstarPeer through the ETF wrapper to see exactly what you own. Every metric is computed from constituent-level data.
Weighted metrics calculated based on 78% of fund assets with available data.
Herfindahl-Hirschman Concentration Index
Morningstar-Style Box
Sector & Cap Explorer
ETF Fundamental Radar
Operational health is mixed, with the bulk of weight in the mid-range (4–6) Piotroski scores.
Piotroski F-Score (Operational Health)
Score 0-9: Measures Profitability, Leverage, and Efficiency
Based on 11% of fund weight with Piotroski data.
Computed by rolling up individual stock Piotroski F-Scores, Altman Z-Scores, and Beneish M-Scores weighted by each constituent's allocation. Data that Vanguard and BlackRock don't surface.
Dividend Safety True-Up
DeterministicThe dividend-paying companies inside IJT collectively pay out 8% of their Free Cash Flow to maintain the current yield. This leaves a substantial cash buffer, making dividend cuts unlikely even in a downturn. Based on 5% of fund weight in dividend-paying stocks.
FCF Payout Ratio = Dividends Paid / Free Cash Flow, weighted by constituent allocation. Not investment advice.
Earnings vs. Price Decomposition
ProprietaryIJT is up 26.9% over the last 12 months. The underlying weighted earnings growth of its constituents is +69.2%. Despite earnings growth, valuations have contracted by 42.2% — the market is paying less per dollar of earnings than a year ago.
Earnings growth = weighted average YoY EPS growth of all constituents (capped at ±500% to limit outlier distortion). Based on 11% of fund weight with earnings data. Not investment advice.
Value Creation Map
ROIC vs WACCWhat percentage of IJT's weight is allocated to companies that create economic value (ROIC > WACC) vs. destroy it?
Of IJT's analyzed weight, 27% is invested in companies earning more than their cost of capital — genuine value creators. The remaining 73% consists of companies whose ROIC falls below their WACC, effectively destroying shareholder value with every dollar invested.
ROIC-WACC spread for 10% of fund weight with available data. Not investment advice.
Passive Crowding Score
MODERATEHow much of each constituent's market cap is structurally locked in passive ETFs — a proxy for liquidity fragility during sell-offs.
IJT has a Passive Crowding Score of 45/100. On average, 13.6% of the market capitalization of IJT's underlying holdings is structurally locked in passive ETF vehicles. This indicates moderate passive ownership density. Index rebalances and ETF creation/redemption activity can amplify short-term volatility in the underlying holdings.
Passive $ = Σ(ETF AUM × holding weight) across all 12 tracked ETFs. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds). Not investment advice.
Under the Hood — Top 10 Constituents
| # | Ticker | Company | Weight | P/E | F-Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | VIAV | Viavi Solutions Inc | 1.46% | — | 5/9 |
| 2 | SANM | Sanmina Corp | 1.43% | 30.2x | 5/9 |
| 3 | FORM | FormFactor Inc | 1.27% | 136.2x | 4/9 |
| 4 | PRIM | Primoris Services Corp | 1.18% | 27.7x | 6/9 |
| 5 | AGX | Argan Inc Industrials | 1.12% | 54.9x | 6/9 |
| 6 | VSAT | Viasat Inc | 1.07% | — | 6/9 |
| 7 | ESE | ESCO Technologies Inc Technology | 1.01% | 57.1x | 3/9 |
| 8 | POWL | Powell Industries Inc | 0.95% | 33.4x | 5/9 |
| 9 | ZWS | Zurn Elkay Water Solutions Corp | 0.93% | 39.5x | 8/9 |
| 10 | ECG | Everus Construction Group Inc Industrials | 0.90% | 28.9x | 5/9 |
Historical Holdings Snapshots
Browse how IJT’s holdings have changed across SEC filing dates. Showing top holdings per snapshot.
2026-05-24
10 holdings · 11.3% tracked weight2026-05-23
10 holdings · 11.3% tracked weight2026-05-22
10 holdings · 11.3% tracked weight2026-05-21
10 holdings · 11.3% tracked weight2026-05-20
10 holdings · 11.3% tracked weightSource: SEC filings and fund provider disclosures. Shows last 6 snapshot dates, top 15 holdings per date by weight.
Risk Profile
Sharpe = risk-adjusted return (higher is better). Computed from 1,200+ trading days with 5% risk-free rate.
Price Chart with Moving Averages
What Drove IJT Today?
Daily return attribution — which holdings contributed most (and least) to the fund's move.
Technical Setup
AI GeneratedThe current price level of $160.58 for IJT sits within a context where institutional positioning is often inferred through the interplay of moving averages and volume dynamics, though specific crossover data or trend lines are absent from the provided snapshot. Without explicit confirmation of short-term crossovers above long-term thresholds or sustained volume surges that typically accompany aggressive accumulation, it remains difficult to definitively characterize whether larger market participants are currently in a net buying phase or defending existing positions at this price point. The absence of these specific technical triggers suggests that while the asset is trading near its current valuation, there may not be immediate, overt signals from institutional flows indicating a decisive shift in momentum direction based solely on the available figures. Institutional behavior often manifests as a divergence between price action and volume or through sustained breaks of key statistical boundaries; however, with only a single data point regarding the stock's value, any attempt to deduce complex order flow strategies is speculative. Larger players frequently utilize support levels derived from historical volatility and moving average clusters to time entries, yet without observing how recent trading activity interacts with these theoretical lines at $160.58, one cannot ascertain if significant capital is entering or exiting the position. The technical picture remains neutral regarding institutional intent until further data points confirm whether price stability is backed by low turnover (suggesting a lack of new interest) or high volume (indicating active rebalancing). Ultimately, the solitary figure provided offers limited insight into the
Underwater (Drawdown from Peak)
How far below the all-time high the price has been over time. Deeper = more pain for holders.
Rolling 60-Day Beta vs S&P 500 (VOO)
How the ETF's sensitivity to market moves changes over time. β > 1 = more volatile than the market.
Yield & Income
Sector Drift Over Time
How IJT’s sector allocation has shifted across snapshots. Use the slider to travel through time.
Active Conviction Tracker
Shares bought and sold between the latest two data snapshots — reveals what the fund manager is actually doing.
Explore More
Quant metrics computed deterministically from financial statements and price data. Updated: 2026-06-02.
SecuritiesDB is for informational purposes only. Not investment advice.