A couple of thoughts...
Here are a few ETFs to look into
Let me know if you have any questions. (I am ready for backlash of people screaming about how you can't beat the market so you have to get the cheapest fund).
I guess I'll be that guy..
These really sound like some serious market timing nonsense! Always amazed what those marketing people come up with. No wonder there are more mutual funds that stocks in existence.
But hey, if you want to pay 9 times the expenses of an index knock yourself out. I really don't care, and take no personal offense whatever you do. Actually I find reading about these "fool proof" market beating strategies pretty hilarious so keep 'em coming!
And since OP is above average per his own admission, and I'm decidedly average myself, I'm afraid I can't help anyway.
First off, most people don't realize this, but Mr Bogle thinks that active management can make sense. He does think that it has to be done in a low cost manner, and he thinks you shouldn't go for the cheapest fund because it is the cheapest fund. (
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102688265). It still needs to lowish in fees. There is no excuses for disconnecting your brain cells and getting a mutual fund paying 2% a year in fees.
Secondly, why do people that believe in passive management also believe that any deviation from a market cap weighted index is incredibly foolish?
http://www.followingthetrend.com/2015/06/a-random-ass-kicking-of-wall-street/ Here he talks about how ridiculous this assumption is. He also shows how just changing how portfolios are weighted can have a huge impact on the returns.
Now if you are asking, "Aren't the momentum and sector rotation etfs different because they are actually choosing which to own and which to not own?" That is a fair and true point. However, momentum has been well documented to work over incredibly long timeframes (including out of sample tests) and across several asset classes (bonds, currencies, futures, commodities). Now these strategies are invested 100% of the time. Most issues with market timing involves jumping in and out of the market at the wrong times. This will not have that issue. It will be jumping in and out of sectors/stocks and there is risk there, but to call it market timing is a bit misguided (I would call it both systematic investing and active management but not market timing). If you are questioning whether momentum (or value investing for that matter) actually works then you haven't looked at the research with an open mind. If you don't want to do the research and look for ways to get a slight edge in the market, then that is fine. Your approach is reasonable. However, so is mine.
Furthermore, I didn't say this was "fool proof" (at least that I can find), and I am not saying that these strategies will beat the market every year. Some years they will lag, but momentum has generally outperformed even on a risk adjusted basis (
http://blog.alphaarchitect.com/2015/03/26/the-best-way-to-combine-value-and-momentum-investing-strategies/). They are generally more volatile, but they have higher sharpe ratios and sortino ratios than their market cap weighted brethren.
Also, these are ETFs not mutual funds. The tax structure of a mutual fund would render these strategies useless if they were done inside of a mutual fund.
Furthermore, is .15% really that expensive for a strategy that has historically beat the market (over long enough time frames (should I really have to say that, no strategy ever beats the market every year, but if I don't put in this qualifier then people start interpreting it as "fool proof", rant over))?