Provide me with a list of undervalued ETFs

Screening Filters

1. RSI Category: moderate, oversold

   • Purpose: Identify ETFs that are not overbought and may be out of favor in the short term, which can often coincide with undervaluation.
   • Rationale:
     • RSI (Relative Strength Index) is a momentum indicator.
     • Oversold ETFs (typically RSI below ~30) have seen recent selling pressure and may trade below intrinsic value if the selloff is overdone.
     • Including moderate RSI (neither oversold nor overbought) avoids ETFs that are already in a strong uptrend (often fully priced or overvalued), yet still captures those that aren’t excessively weak.
     • While RSI alone does not prove undervaluation, it focuses the search on ETFs that are not in a euphoric, overbought state, which is consistent with looking for undervalued ideas.

2. Moving Average Relationship: PriceBelowMA200

   • Purpose: Find ETFs trading below their long‑term trend, a common sign of being beaten down or neglected by the market.
   • Rationale:
     • The 200‑day moving average is a standard long‑term trend indicator.
     • When price is below the 200‑day MA, it often indicates the ETF has underperformed for an extended period.
     • Undervalued assets frequently look weak on charts because they’ve been sold off or ignored; this filter narrows the list to such candidates.
     • This doesn’t guarantee they’re fundamentally cheap, but it aligns the screen with “out-of-favor” ETF behavior that often overlaps with value opportunities.

3. 1‑Year Price Change %: max: -10

   • Purpose: Focus on ETFs that have declined meaningfully over the last year, rather than those that have already run up.
   • Rationale:
     • A max: -10 constraint typically means the ETF is down at least 10% over the past year (or at most –10%, depending on implementation, but the intention is clear: recent underperformance).
     • Undervalued ETFs are often those that have lagged or corrected, especially if fundamentals didn’t deteriorate as much as price suggests.
     • This filter removes ETFs with strong recent gains (which are more likely fully valued or expensive) and keeps those where price has compressed, potentially creating value.

4. Stock Position %: MoreThan90Pct

   • Purpose: Ensure the ETFs are primarily invested in equities rather than holding large cash or non-equity positions.
   • Rationale:
     • When investors talk about “undervalued ETFs,” they usually mean equity ETFs trading below what their underlying businesses or holdings are worth.
     • Requiring >90% in stocks ensures the screen focuses on genuine equity exposure, not balanced funds, alternative strategies, or cash-heavy products where “value” is harder to interpret.
     • This makes the results more relevant to classic value‑oriented ETF investors.

5. Expense Ratio: max: 0.75

   • Purpose: Filter out high-fee ETFs so you’re evaluating candidates that are not only potentially undervalued but also cost‑efficient to hold.
   • Rationale:
     • High fees can erode returns and effectively reduce the benefit of buying something “cheap.”
     • Capping the expense ratio at 0.75% removes many niche, leveraged, or actively managed ETFs that might be expensive to own.
     • Keeping costs reasonable is a core part of a value approach: you don’t want to overpay in fees for an ETF you believe is undervalued.

Why Results Match the “Undervalued ETFs” Request

• The combination of price below 200‑day MA, negative 1‑year performance, and non‑overbought RSI explicitly targets ETFs that are out of favor, recently sold off, or trading below long‑term trend—all conditions commonly associated with potential undervaluation.
• Restricting to equity‑heavy ETFs (>90% stocks) aligns with the typical meaning of undervaluation (underpriced underlying companies, sectors, or markets).
• Imposing a reasonable expense ratio ensures that any undervaluation opportunity is not undermined by high ongoing costs, making the screened ETFs more attractive for long‑term investors.

Together, these filters don’t guarantee that every result is fundamentally undervalued, but they systematically narrow the list to ETFs that:

• Have underperformed recently,
• Are trading below long‑term averages,
• Are not in an overbought phase,
• Provide mainly equity exposure, and
• Are reasonably priced in fees—
  which is a logical and disciplined way to search for potentially undervalued ETFs.