Discussion

To recap this cycle: stocks and bonds historically do not perform well when the Fed tightens monetary conditions, and that’s just what the Fed announced it would be doing at the end of 2021. This would include raising rates and changing its balance sheet actions, which doesn’t create a great environment for financial assets. If we’re in the last, third act of the play, the third act may last a very long time.

There are three things investors are facing, none of which is particularly positive for financial assets.

Money supply exploded during the COVID–19 pandemic, but declined dramatically in 2022, to low levels. This withdrawal of money supply is bad for stock and bond returns.

A second, modern component to monetary policy is the Fed balance sheet. After buying bonds during the pandemic, the Fed has now started shrinking the balance sheet—one estimate indicates $330B net out by the end of last November. The Fed has only shrunk its balance sheet once before, so we are facing an unknown.

Commodity prices and the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) receive much focus, but I think what the Fed is really fighting is wage inflation. That is the kind of inflation that is endemic and hard to manage once it takes hold, not least because it creates a spiraling effect. I think the Fed knows it can’t control oil prices or supply chain directly, but it wants to manage this wage inflation psychology.

Services typically don’t reflect the price of commodities and, in 2022, we saw services inflation increase significantly. That’s not slowing down, and this is a battle the Fed is fighting that I think will last for an extended period of time.

A second bearish factor is that government spending is unlikely to increase this year. The Republicans, who won control of the House of Representatives, are looking to slow government spending. And even Democrats like Larry Summers believe that stimulus spending during the pandemic led to inflation, so we’re unlikely to see another big stimulus spending bill regardless of who controls government.

Both Chinese and European growth, for different reasons, were slow in 2022. Over the last 20 years, U.S. and China have been the two main pillars of global growth. While China has loosened its Draconian domestic COVID-19 restrictions, and I think there will be a growth surge, the growth may be more domestic and consumer-led, which may not stimulate global growth as much as it has in recent decades.

The range in China growth estimates is from low (1% to 3%) to “high” (4% to 5%). In coming years, we will likely have to look to India, Indonesia and Africa to take up the baton as pillars of higher percentage global growth.

I don’t believe that we will escape these three dampeners on stock and bond returns in 2023—higher interest rates, no government spending growth and tepid global growth. We will need upside corporate profitability surprises or high Chinese growth to substantially boost markets this year, in our view.

However, after the 2022 losses, bond investments are now offering attractive yields, so this is currently our favorite asset class to buy. (See What to Buy? Bonds. When? Now.)² Because of higher interest rates, bonds

VANECK ETFs

PRESIDENT’S LETTER

(unaudited) (continued)

can offer adequate returns, as they did in the 1970s even though that decade was the worst for interest rates in the last 100 years

We thank you for investing in VanEck’s investment strategies. On the following pages, you will find a performance discussion and financial statements for each of the funds for the twelve month period ended December 31, 2022. As always, we value your continued confidence in us and look forward to helping you meet your investment goals in the future.

Jan F. van Eck

CEO and President

VanEck ETF Trust

January 19, 2023

PS The investing outlook can change suddenly. To get our quarterly investment outlooks, please subscribe to “VanEck News & Insights”. Should you have any questions regarding fund performance, please contact us at 800.826.2333 or visit our website.

¹ Market Volatility Has One Final Act, https://www.vaneck.com/us/en/blogs/investment-outlook/jan-van-eck-market-volatility-has-one-final-act/.

² What to Buy? Bonds. When? Now, https://www.vaneck.com/us/en/blogs/investment-outlook/jan-van-eck-what-to-buy-bonds-when-now/.

VANECK ETFs

MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION

December 31, 2022 (unaudited)

Agribusiness

From its highest point towards the end of April, the VanEck Agribusiness ETF fell for most of the rest of the year and the Fund lost 7.95% for the 12 month period. Two sectors contributed positively to the Fund’s performance—the materials and industrial sectors, with companies in the chemicals segment of the materials sector contributing the most. The primary detractor from the Fund’s performance, however, was the healthcare sector, with those companies in the pharmaceuticals and healthcare equipment and supplies segments (involved in the wellbeing, health and safety of livestock, pets and also people), contributing most negatively. By far the greatest negative returns came from companies in the U.S., while the greatest positive returns came from those in Chile.

Future of Food

With market sentiment showing little favor to growth stocks, the VanEck Future of Food ETF had a disappointing year, losing 26.14% for the 12 month period. Only the industrial sector contributed positively to performance and then only minimally. The greatest detractors from performance were the materials and consumer staples sectors. By far the greatest negative returns came from companies in the U.S., while the greatest positive returns came from those in China.

The three top positive contributions to the Fund’s performance came from: Corteva (5.4% of Fund net assets†), Deere & Company (6.0% of Fund net assets†) and Valmont Industries (3.8% of Fund net assets†). The companies that detracted most from performance were: Oatly Group (1.3% of Fund net assets†), AppHarvest (0.6% of Fund net assets†) and Tattooed Chef (0.2% of Fund net assets†).

Gold Miners

The stocks of both major gold miners and their junior peers had a disappointing year. While persistent inflation might usually have been propitious, the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank’s raising of interest rates during the year was not. Perhaps affected more than generally by the many uncertainties that abounded in the market and the rising cost of materials, the junior gold miners (VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF) posted a loss of 14.48% and larger gold miners (VanEck Gold Miners ETF) posted a loss of 8.87% for the 12 month period.

Among the larger mining stocks, companies in China and the Brazil contributed the most to performance. U.S. and Canadian companies detracted the most from performance. Among the juniors, Brazil and Turkey were the strongest contributors, while Canada detracted by far the most from performance.

The three top positive contributions to the VanEck Gold Miners ETF’s performance came from: Northern Star Resources (3.8% of Fund net assets†), Alamos Gold (1.7% of Fund net assets†) and Yamana Gold (2.3% of Fund net assets†). The companies that detracted most from performance were: Newmont Corporation (12.6% of Fund net assets†), Newcrest Mining (4.3% of Fund net assets†) and Evolution Mining (1.6% of Fund net assets†).

The three top positive contributions to the VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF’s performance came from: Yamana Gold (6.0% of Fund net assets†), Koza Altin Isletmeleri (1.8% of Fund net assets†) and Alamos Gold (4.2% of Fund net assets†). The companies that detracted most from performance were: Pan American Silver (3.9% of Fund net assets†), Evolution Mining (3.4% of Fund net assets†) and Equinox Gold (0.9% of Fund net assets†).

Green Metals

The VanEck Green Metals ETF had a disappointing year, losing 16.99% for the 12 month period, not least reflecting the market’s continuing move away from growth stocks. The greatest positive returns came from companies in the Australia. However, their contributions were significantly counterbalanced by losses from Chinese companies operating across much of the spectrum of green metals.

The three top positive contributions to the Fund’s performance came from: Glencore (8.6% of Fund net assets†), Albemarle (5.8% of Fund net assets†) and Teck Resources (5.2% of Fund net assets†). The companies that detracted most from performance were: MMC Norilsk Nickel (sold by Fund by period end), China

VANECK ETFs

MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION (continued)

Northern Rare Earth (Group) High-Tech (2.5% of Fund net assets†) and Zhejiang Huayou Cobalt (3.2% of Fund net assets†).

Low Carbon Energy

While traditional energy stocks thrived in 2022, in contrast, reflecting amongst other things the market’s negative sentiment towards structural growth, the performance of low carbon energy stocks during the 12 month period was both volatile and disappointing, with the VanEck Low Carbon Energy ETF recording a loss of 29.52%. While companies in the information technology sector contributed the most positively to performance, their contributions, together with those in the other sectors contributing positively, were counterbalanced by the significant losses from companies in the consumer discretionary sector. Brazil and Spain were the best performing countries. Companies from China and the U.S. detracted by far the most from performance.

The three top positive contributions to the Fund’s performance came from: Enphase Energy (5.5% of Fund net assets†), First Solar (2.5% of Fund net assets†) and Vestas Wind Systems (5.7% of Fund net assets†). The companies that detracted most from performance were: Tesla (6.2% of Fund net assets†), NIO (2.9% of Fund net assets†) and XPeng (1.1% of Fund net assets†)

Natural Resources

Natural resources stocks had a volatile, but ultimately successful, year with the VanEck Natural Resources ETF gaining 7.10% over the 12 month period under review. During the year, stocks were helped by commodity prices remaining resilient. The energy sector contributed by far the most to performance, while the healthcare sector was the greatest detractor. U.S. companies contributed by far the most to performance, while Russian companies detracted the most.

The three top positive contributions to the Fund’s performance came from: Exxon Mobil (5.2% of Fund net assets†), Chevron (3.9% of Fund net assets†) and Deere & Company (5.9% of Fund net assets†). The companies that detracted most from performance were: Bayer (2.5% of Fund net assets†), Kubota (0.6% of Fund net assets†) and Gazprom (sold by the Fund by period end).

Oil Refiners

Benefiting from high traditional energy prices, oil refining stocks had a good year with the VanEck Oil Refiners ETF recording a gain of 18.50% over the 12 month period. Exposure to refiners in the U.S. contributed by far the most to the Fund’s total return. The only significant negative contributing countries were Taiwan and South Korea.

The three top positive contributions to the Fund’s performance came from: Marathon Petroleum (8.3% of Fund net assets†), Valero Energy (6.7% of Fund net assets†) and Phillips 66 (6.9% of Fund net assets†). The companies that detracted most from performance were: SK Innovation (4.3% of Fund net assets†), Formosa Petrochemical (4.3% of Fund net assets†) and Reliance Industries (7.5% of Fund net assets†).

Oil Services

On the back of a strong traditional energy sector and high crude oil prices, oil services stocks performed extremely well in 2022 and the VanEck Oil Services ETF ended the 12 month period up 66.14%. The oil service stocks in the U.S., with the largest average country weighting, contributed by far the most to performance and no countries detracted from performance.

The three top positive contributions to the Fund’s performance came from: Schlumberger (19.7% of Fund net assets†), Halliburton (11.7% of Fund net assets†) and Helmerich & Payne (4.5% of Fund net assets†). The companies that detracted from performance were: DMC Global (sold by the Fund by period end) and Core Laboratories (0.8% of Fund net assets†). Oil States International (0.6% of Fund net assets†) contributed least positively.

Rare Earth and Strategic Metals

The VanEck Rare Earth/Strategic Metals ETF had disappointing year in 2022, losing 30.68%. Despite firm lithium prices during the year, the Fund suffered from the continuing rotation in the market out of growth and into value stocks. The majority of the companies in the Fund’s portfolio contributed negatively to returns. And of those few companies contributing positively, those involved in the mining of lithium and/or production of lithium contributed the most. The greatest detractors from performance were three companies with mining operations and/or production involving rare earths and cobalt.

The three top positive contributions to the Fund’s performance came from: Pilbara Minerals (7.3% of Fund net assets†), Sigma Lithium (4.1% of Fund net assets†) and Eramet (2.5% of Fund net assets†). The companies that detracted most from performance were: China Northern Rare Earth (Group) High-Tech (7.5% of Fund net assets†), MP Materials (4.5% of Fund net assets†) and Zhejiang Huayou Cobalt (7.8% of Fund net assets†).

Steel

Strong demand and steel consumption, following the restrictions and lockdowns of 2021, resulted in the VanEck Steel ETF recording a gain of 13.87% for the 12 month period. The U.S., followed by Brazil, were the greatest contributors to performance. Only two countries, China and Luxembourg, detracted from performance and, then, only minimally.

The three top positive contributions to the Fund’s performance came from: Vale (12.3% of Fund net assets†), Tenaris (5.1% of Fund net assets†) and Steel Dynamics (5.0% of Fund net assets†). The companies that detracted most from performance were: Ternium (4.6% of Fund net assets†), Companhia Siderurgica Nacional (4.4% of Fund net assets†) and ArcelorMittal (4.8% of Fund net assets†).

Uranium+Nuclear Energy

Having had a volatile year, stocks in the VanEck Uranium+Nuclear Energy ETF recorded a gain of 2.10% for the 12 month period. Utilities companies were the greatest contributors to the Fund’s positive total return, with only the energy sector detracting from performance. Geographically, companies in the U.S contributed the most to performance, while those in Finland were the greatest detractors from performance.

The three top positive contributions to the Fund’s performance came from: Constellation Energy (6.4% of Fund net assets†), PG&E (6.1% of Fund net assets†) and Electricite de France (5.0% of Fund net assets†). The companies that detracted most from performance were: Fortum (4.5% of Fund net assets†), Dominion Energy (8.3% of Fund net assets†) and Endesa (4.4% of Fund net assets†).

^†All Funds assets referenced are Total Net Assets as of December 31, 2022.