Are There Too Many Niche ETFs Now?
β
There are far more ETFs than most investors will ever need, and the explosion in niche products mainly benefits issuers, not you.
β
A simple, low-cost three-fund portfolio is usually more resilient, more diversified, and easier to stick with than a basket of story-driven niche ETFs.
β
Here's what's actually happening and why it matters.
β
The ETF Explosion
β
Global ETF assets hit roughly the mid-teens trillions of dollars by 2024, with nearly $2 trillion of net inflows in that year alone. New launches have been aggressive: one large provider notes more than 900 new ETFs came to market in North America in 2024, with the majority being active or specialized strategies, not plain vanilla broad-market trackers.
β
Thematic ETFs have exploded. Globally there are around 1,400 thematic ETFs, about four times the number in 2018. In the U.S. alone there are hundreds of thematic funds targeting very specific trends like AI, space, cannabis, or "pet care."
β
Issuers push these because fees are higher, marketing is easier ("invest in the future of X"), and investor demand for "hot themes" comes in waves.
β
Notice a pattern? These products launch when a theme is already hot. After the damage is already done. After retail investors are already excited and ready to buy.
β
Why Niche ETFs Are Dangerous
β
Niche ETFs aren't inherently evil, but they're often terrible fits for ordinary, long-term investors.
β
Concentration and lack of diversification. Thematic and single-sector ETFs intentionally concentrate in a narrow slice of the market. You end up taking big, uncompensated bets on one technology, industry, or even a single stock. When a theme goes out of favor, it can crater your portfolio even while the broad market does fine.
β
Higher costs and complexity. Thematic and complex structures like leveraged, inverse, single-stock, or options-based ETFs usually charge materially higher expense ratios than plain index funds. Some require daily rebalancing to maintain leverage or exposure. Over years, those fees plus "volatility drag" can quietly erase much of the edge you thought you were buying.
β
Behavioral and timing risk. Thematics tend to launch after a theme has already run. Many investors buy after big past returns and then ride the round-trip down. Leveraged and single-stock ETFs are especially dangerous because holding them longer than a day or two can turn short-term volatility into permanent capital loss. That's the opposite of what a long-term index investor wants.
β
What a Resilient ETF Portfolio Actually Looks Like
β
A resilient ETF portfolio is boring on purpose. Broad, low-cost, and aligned with your risk tolerance.
β
Here are the core building blocks.
β
The classic three-fund portfolio uses just three broad markets:
β
Total U.S. stock market ETF
β
Total international stock market ETF
β
Total investment-grade bond market ETF
β
With these three, you own thousands of stocks and bonds globally. You're capturing market returns instead of trying to outguess them.
β
Asset allocation levers. You adjust your stock/bond mix based on risk tolerance and time horizon. Someone young might choose 80% stocks and 20% bonds, then gradually shift toward maybe 60/40 or 40/60 closer to retirement. Within stocks, many evidence-based investors split something like 60 to 70% U.S. total market and 30 to 40% international total market.
β
The key is picking a reasonable split and staying consistent over decades.
β
Putting It Into Practice
β
For someone who already leans Boglehead or index-fund focused, here's what to do.
β
Stick to a three to four ETF lineup. For example, U.S. total market, international total market, and total bond. Optionally add one "satellite" like a small-cap value or real estate ETF if you want a modest tilt. Automate contributions and rebalancing, and ignore the noise of shiny new themes.
β
Treat niche ETFs as speculation, if at all. If you really want to play with a hot theme, cap it at a very small slice, like 5% or less of your total portfolio, and mentally label it as "fun money." For most people, the simplest move is to skip them entirely. History suggests broad, low-cost index exposure plus discipline beats a rotating cast of niche ETFs for long-term wealth building.
β
Concrete Examples
β
Here's what this looks like in practice at major brokerages:
β
Vanguard:
- VTI (Total Stock Market)
- VXUS (Total International Stock)
- BND (Total Bond Market)
β
Fidelity:
- ITOT (Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market)
- IXUS (Core MSCI Total International Stock)
- AGG (Core U.S. Aggregate Bond)
β
Schwab:
- SCHB (U.S. Broad Market)
- SCHF (International Equity)
- SCHZ (U.S. Aggregate Bond)
β
Pick your platform. Pick your three funds. Automate contributions. Rebalance once or twice a year. Done.
β
β
β
The three-fund portfolio works because it removes the things that hurt most investors: overtrading, chasing themes, high fees, and concentration risk.
β
You're not trying to beat the market. You're capturing the market's returns with minimal effort and maximum efficiency.
β
You're not guessing which themes will win. You own all of them through broad exposure.
β
You're not timing entries and exits. You're always invested and always buying more.
β
The result? Better returns with less stress, less time, and less drama than the person jumping between AI ETFs, space ETFs, and whatever niche product launches next.
β
The ETF industry wants you to believe you need specialized products to succeed. You don't.
β
Issuers make more money on complex, thematic products. That's why they keep launching them. Not because you need them, but because they're more profitable to sell.
β
Meanwhile, the boring three-fund portfolio keeps quietly outperforming because it's diversified, cheap, and doesn't require you to be right about which theme wins next.
β
Build it once. Automate it. Then ignore the parade of shiny new ETFs that launch every month promising to be the next big thing.
β
Most of them will disappear. Your three-fund portfolio won't.
β