ACDC reports AUD 348.636m profit and AUD 79.126m distributions
Global X Battery Tech & Lithium ETF delivered a sharply higher profit for the year ended 30 June 2026, driven by large fair-value gains across its listed equity portfolio. But the fund says its net asset value has since fallen by more than 10% as underlying battery and lithium investments weakened.
- AUD 348.636 million annual profit, up from AUD 47.877 million
- AUD 345.841 million of net fair-value investment gains
- Net assets rose to AUD 697.861 million at 30 June 2026
- AUD 79.126 million in distributions declared for the year
- Post-year-end NAV decline of more than 10%
Fair-value gains drive ACDC’s annual result
Global X Battery Tech & Lithium ETF (ASX:ACDC) produced an AUD 348.636 million profit in the year to 30 June 2026, more than seven times the AUD 47.877 million recorded a year earlier. The result was overwhelmingly investment-led: net gains on financial instruments, including foreign exchange movements, reached AUD 345.841 million, comprising AUD 182.764 million in unrealised gains and AUD 163.077 million in realised gains.
That distinction matters for an exchange traded fund. ACDC’s reported profit largely reflects changes in the market value of the listed shares it holds rather than recurring operating income. Dividends and distributions contributed AUD 8.028 million, while operating expenses rose to AUD 5.240 million, including AUD 4.612 million in management fees.
Assets expand before the market turns
At 30 June, the fund held AUD 773.258 million in listed equity securities, up from AUD 462.131 million a year earlier. Net assets attributable to unitholders increased to AUD 697.861 million from AUD 457.516 million, despite AUD 79.126 million in distributions paid or payable during the year.
The fund declared a distribution of 1,633.69 cents per unit for the year. Investor flows were less supportive than the headline asset growth: 170,000 units were issued through applications, while 480,000 units were redeemed, leaving units on issue at 4.844 million compared with 5.145 million a year earlier. The rise in net assets therefore came principally from investment performance rather than net unit creation.
Post-year-end NAV decline changes the picture
The most consequential disclosure sits after the balance date. ACDC’s responsible entity says the fund’s net asset value has decreased by more than 10% since 30 June 2026 because of changes in the value of investments underlying the Solactive Battery Value-Chain Index. The report does not quantify the decline beyond that threshold or identify which holdings were responsible.
The disclosed sensitivity analysis illustrates the portfolio’s exposure: a 10% movement in the value of investments would have changed net assets by AUD 77.326 million at year end, while a 10% currency movement would have produced an AUD 72.167 million impact. All of the fund’s financial assets were classified as Level 1 holdings, meaning they were valued using quoted prices in active markets, and the fund held no derivatives or Level 3 instruments.
Audit passes, but volatility remains the key variable
Ernst & Young issued an unqualified audit opinion, identifying the existence and valuation of the AUD 773.258 million investment portfolio as the key audit matter. The fund said its investment strategy had not changed after year end, leaving future results primarily exposed to the performance of the battery and lithium shares within the index.
The annual numbers show how quickly a thematic ETF can move from spectacular gains to a material drawdown. The next meaningful evidence will be the fund’s subsequent NAV and market-price data, which should show whether the more-than-10% decline was a short-lived reversal or the beginning of a deeper reset.
Bottom Line?
The strong annual profit is historical and market-driven; the more immediate signal is whether ACDC’s post-year-end NAV decline stabilises or continues.
Questions in the middle?
- How large was the NAV decline beyond the disclosed 10% threshold, and over what period did it occur?
- Which battery, lithium and broader technology holdings contributed most to the post-year-end fall?
- Can distributions remain at elevated levels if market gains and portfolio income weaken?