Looking at the underlying holdings of the ETFs in our coverage universe at ETF Channel, we have compared the trading price of each holding against the average analyst 12-month forward target price, and computed the weighted average implied analyst target price for the ETF itself. For the Invesco S&P 500— Top 50 ETF (Symbol: XLG), we found that the implied analyst target price for the ETF based upon its underlying holdings is $378.76 per unit.
With XLG trading at a recent price near $337.35 per unit, that means that analysts see 12.27% upside for this ETF looking through to the average analyst targets of the underlying holdings. Three of XLG's underlying holdings with notable upside to their analyst target prices are Amazon.com Inc (Symbol: AMZN), Medtronic PLC (Symbol: MDT), and AbbVie Inc (Symbol: ABBV). Although AMZN has traded at a recent price of $3288.62/share, the average analyst target is 26.72% higher at $4167.26/share. Similarly, MDT has 18.47% upside from the recent share price of $125.27 if the average analyst target price of $148.41/share is reached, and analysts on average are expecting ABBV to reach a target price of $127.64/share, which is 14.80% above the recent price of $111.18. Below is a twelve month price history chart comparing the stock performance of AMZN, MDT, and ABBV:
Combined, AMZN, MDT, and ABBV represent 8.93% of the Invesco S&P 500— Top 50 ETF. Below is a summary table of the current analyst target prices discussed above:
|Name||Symbol||Recent Price||Avg. Analyst 12-Mo. Target||% Upside to Target|
|Invesco S&P 500— Top 50 ETF||XLG||$337.35||$378.76||12.27%|
Are analysts justified in these targets, or overly optimistic about where these stocks will be trading 12 months from now? Do the analysts have a valid justification for their targets, or are they behind the curve on recent company and industry developments? A high price target relative to a stock's trading price can reflect optimism about the future, but can also be a precursor to target price downgrades if the targets were a relic of the past. These are questions that require further investor research.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.