Qubes. StreetTracks. HOLDRs. Names of popular rock groups? Not even close. They’re all investments called exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and many people use them to build a diversified portfolio. Maybe you should, too — if you understand the risk/reward trade-offs.

An ETF is a basket of securities, shares of which are sold on an exchange, such as the American Stock Exchange. They combine features and potential benefits of stocks, mutual funds, or bonds. Like individual stocks, ETF shares are traded throughout the day at prices that change based on supply and demand. Like mutual fund shares, ETF shares represent partial ownership of a portfolio that’s assembled by professional managers.

Types of ETFs

There are a number of ETFs, each with a different investment focus. Following are some common types of ETFs.

• Diamonds follow the 30 large-cap companies that make up the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

• Standard & Poor’s Depositary Receipts (Spiders) mirror the S&P 500, an index of 500 of the largest companies in the United States. They also track select sectors of the S&P 500.

• iShares hold baskets of stocks in specific regions of the world, select countries, or sectors, or follow U.S. corporate or government bond securities.¹

• Qubes track the 100 largest businesses of the technology-driven Nasdaq Composite Index.

• StreetTracks replicate various indexes focused on sectors, countries, or investment style.¹

• Holding Company Depositary Receipts (HOLDRs) are ETFs with a twist. They usually focus on narrow, emerging sectors — companies building the Internet infrastructure, for example — and their baskets hold only about 20 stocks to begin with. Stocks will never be added, and over time a HOLDR’s basket can become even more concentrated, as stocks that are lost due to mergers aren’t replaced. HOLDRs also differ from most ETFs in that they only trade in lots of 100 shares and shareholders can exchange their shares for the underlying stocks at any time by paying a fee.

Investors should note that because many HOLDRs are narrowly focused, they can be more volatile than other types of ETFs. Also, HOLDR investors will receive annual reports and other investment-related information for each of the 20 stocks in their HOLDR basket. On the other hand, they’ll only pay one brokerage commission instead of 20.

Different Structures

Originally ETFs were organized as unit investment trusts (UITs). In a UIT, an investment company buys a fixed portfolio of securities and then sells shares of that portfolio to investors. This type of structure results in dividends being held in an interest-bearing account, which are deposited into the ETF once each quarter. The delay in investing dividends can have a slightly negative effect on the total return of the ETF because the dividends are held as cash instead of being invested. Spiders, Diamonds, and Qubes are all organized as unit investment trusts.

Other ETFs, such as iShares, Select Sector Spiders, and StreetTracks, are structured as open-end funds. This arrangement follows the typical mutual fund structure in that new shares are continually offered and redeemed by the investment company. An open-end structure allows dividends to be reinvested immediately.

Evaluating ETFs

These investments offer a number of potential advantages, including:

Tax efficiency – ETFs may be more tax efficient than some traditional mutual funds. A mutual fund manager may trade stocks to satisfy investor redemptions or to pursue the fund’s objectives. Selling shares may create taxable gains for the fund’s shareholders. Because ETFs are like stocks, redemptions aren’t an issue. In addition, managers of index-based ETFs only make trades to match changes in their index, which may mean greater tax efficiency.

Low expenses — ETFs that are passively managed (managers usually only trade shares to mirror underlying benchmarks) may have lower annual expenses than actively managed funds.

Flexible trading — Like stocks, ETFs are sold at real-time prices and trade throughout the day. Mutual funds, on the other hand, do not have this flexibility: Their pricing is based on end-of-day trading prices.

Can be sold short and bought on margin — Because ETFs trade like stocks, investors can use them in certain investment strategies, such as selling short and buying on margin. Traditional mutual funds do not allow shorting of stock or margin trading.

No minimum investment — Most mutual funds require a minimum investment, whereas an investor can usually purchase as few shares of most ETFs as desired.

Diversfication — An ETF may be a good way to add diversification to your portfolio. Buying shares of a technology sector ETF, for example, could potentially be less risky than purchasing shares of one technology stock — an ETF may own shares of many different technology companies.

Of course, as with all investments, ETFs may involve risks and other potential drawbacks. Consider these factors before investing:

The trading flexibility of ETFs may encourage frequent trading. That could lead to the possibility of mistiming the market (moving stocks in and out of the market at the wrong times).

Brokerage commissions are incurred. For this reason ETFs may be better suited for a buy-and-hold investor or someone who is buying a large number of shares at one time, rather than for an investor who uses a systematic investment program.

There may be capital gain distributions. At times some ETFs have distributed taxable capital gains usually because the managers have needed to buy or sell stocks to match their underlying benchmarks. Additionally, government bond ETFs are subject to federal income tax.

You should carefully consider the risks of different ETFs. Many sector ETFs, for instance, will tend to be more volatile than an ETF that tracks the broader market. Check with a financial professional to be sure that you understand the risks and have the most up-to-date information before investing in an ETF.

Points to Remember

1. Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) offer potential benefits and risks of both mutual funds, stocks, or bonds.

2. ETFs have different types of structures: Some are set up as unit investment trusts. Others are structured like open-end mutual funds, and dividends are continually reinvested.

3. Advantages of ETFs include potential tax efficiency, low expense ratios, flexible trading, and portfolio diversification.

4. Disadvantages of ETFs include occasional distribution of capital gains, brokerage commissions, and the potential for frequent trading, which could lead to mistiming the market.

5. ETFs may be better for a lump-sum investor with a long time horizon than someone who trades frequently and/or invests at regular intervals.

Investors in international securities are sometimes subject to somewhat higher taxation and higher currency risk, as well as less liquidity, compared with investors in domestic securities. Sector funds are subject to increased volatility due to their limited diversification compared with other stock funds.

###

© 2011 McGraw-Hill Financial Communications. All rights reserved.

April 2011 — This column is provided through the Financial Planning Association, the membership organization for the financial planning community, and is brought to you by Martin V. Higgins, CFP, CLU, AEP , a local member of FPA.

Of late, you can’t watch cable news for a day without seeing more advertisements about owning gold than you used to see in a year. That should tell you something. Because whenever an “investment” concept or idea gets so hot that it pays vendors to spend hugely increased advertising budgets—to get while the getting is good, as it were—you can be pretty sure that concept is in full-on bubble mode.

You will not have failed to notice that you never see wall-to-wall ads for something which is deeply out of fashion, with its price falling and therefore its long-term potential value increasing sharply. Last March, for example, you saw not one ad trumpeting a “50%-off sale on the great companies in America! Buy now—this sale can’t last!” That would have been (a) true, and therefore (b) a total waste of advertising dollars, as equities were so cheap precisely because they were universally considered an instant, fast-acting carcinogen at that time. That’s why they were such a good buy. Ad dollars are best spent on the easiest sale; the easiest sale is always whatever is most in vogue; in investing, the phrase “in vogue” is always interchangeable with the phrase “too late.”

Gold is quite wildly in vogue these days, as the apocalypse du jour—the next crisis which is sure to envelop us all—is popularly held to be inflation: literally, the depreciation of paper currency, and a concomitant rise in the price of hard assets like precious metals. And, like all possibilities that get spun into cataclysmic certainty in the mainstream media, there is even some basis in fact for this.

The United States, in running unprecedented deficits, does indeed threaten the debasement of the dollar, and in fact the dollar’s trend has been down against the other major world currencies—and against commodities—for some time. What’s astonishing is not this premise, but the conclusion that people draw from it: that because an increase in inflation may happen, it will certainly happen. And that gold—making “new historic highs” every day—is the sure bet to get inflation working for you instead of against you.

There is a certain childlike quality to this “reasoning”—as indeed there is to all investment bubbles. It’s a sweet, logical little story that anyone can understand. And all you have to do in order to subscribe to it is completely to ignore the entirety of the historical record.

Let’s begin with the notion of gold as an inflation hedge. In a very long-term sense, gold has, in fact, been a mildly efficient antidote to the erosion of purchasing power. It is axiomatic that an ounce of gold has historically bought a good men’s suit. It did so in London in 1700 and 1800, and in New York and London in 1900 and 2000. I checked the bespoke suit department at Barney’s here in New York over the Christmas shopping season, and found this relationship to be holding, though just barely.

But the idea that gold has a good record in more recent periods—and that equities have a bad record—is simply ludicrous.

Return with me now to that thrilling day of yesteryear: January 21, 1980—very nearly thirty years to the day before you read this. (You want to start training yourself to think in thirty-year clips, by the way, because that’s about the length of the average two-person American retirement that’s starting around now.) That was the day gold hit its previous bubble peak—its “record new historic high,” as journalism likes to call it—the last time around. It topped out at $850 an ounce.

Now here’s the really fascinating part. If gold had functioned as an efficient inflation hedge in the interim—that is, if its nominal dollar price had risen in lock-step with Consumer Price Index inflation, thereby offsetting it—it would have to be selling today at about $2266 per ounce.

It isn’t. As I write, a few days before Christmas, it’s $1110, and the “all-time record new historic high” of recent headlines was about $100 an ounce higher than it is now. Just to give gold the benefit of the doubt, do you want to call it $1250 an ounce?

Fine. At $1250 an ounce, the real price of gold, adjusted for CPI inflation, has fallen about 45% in the last thirty years. At $1110, of course, it’s down over half. (If you want to perform this calculation for yourself, go to the wonderful website www.measuringworth.com/uscompare. It lets you calculate by calendar year, so I did 1980 through 2008, and then added two percent as a plug number for 2009 CPI inflation.) Classics Illustrated comic books were a far better inflation hedge than that.

As were—hold on to your hat—common stocks. On January 21, 1980, the S&P 500 closed at 112. To have hedged against inflation—to have gone up in lock-step with the CPI, thereby offsetting inflation—the S&P 500 would have needed to rise to a tad more than 300 by year-end 2009. As I write, it’s 1100. That is, the real price of equities, adjusted for CPI inflation, has risen something like three and a half times in the last thirty years.

And of course, equities paid dividends. You had to pay to store gold.

What does any of this prove? Probably nothing, in the sense that the past—and especially any thirty-year clip of the past—doesn’t prove anything about the future. But it is highly suggestive of a couple of important truths. The first is that, if you’re going to invest in something that’s supposed to be a near-perfect inflation hedge, you’d better make real sure that it has, in fact, hedged inflation with some consistent efficiency. And the other is that there’s nothing like buying into investment fads to insure wildly substandard returns for years, and even decades, to come.

Next time you see six different ads for gold in one broadcasting day, these might be two really good things to bear in mind.

© 2010 Nick Murray. All rights reserved. Reprinted by permission.