Displaying items by tag: ETFs

(New York)

Everyone knows mutual funds have been on the decline and ETFs on the rise as active management gives way to the rise of passives. However, new data throws a wrench into that narrative—hedge funds are surging in popularity. Hedge funds now account for 28% of all alternative asset demands among investors, just one point shy of private equity, and way up from 12% a year ago. The catch is that hedge funds don’t really look like themselves anymore, with new fund structures, such as separately managed accounts and lower fees, that make them more useful for investors. Co-investing is another big growth area, where major investors invest alongside hedge funds in specific deals.

FINSUM: So hedge funds have surged in popularity, but they are not hedge funds, in the same sense, as before. Further, fees are down, with the average being a management fee of 1.45% and a performance fee of 17%.

(New York)

Every investor knows ETF have surged in popularity. However, one the big questions of major importance in the industry is “who owns them?”. The answer is, mostly, investment advisors. There has been a major shift in the ETF industry since the Crisis, as ETF consumption by Investment Advisors has surged as AUM in that area has grown. What’s more, that holding is rocketing year on year, with total AUM ownership in the segment growing by around $400 bn between 2016 and 2017. Brokers, by contrast have seen their total share of ETF ownership plummet, from 16% in 2007 to just 2.2% now.

FINSUM: Retail still owns the majority, but investment advisors have been the major growth driver for the segment and their influence is widening considerably.

(New York)

No this is not an article about a liquidity mismatch between ETFs and their underlying products, well at east not entirely. The FT has published a new article by an asset management industry insider arguing that to understand the implications of passive investing, one needs to look more broadly than ETFs themselves. In particular, the piece contends that it is the rise of algorithmic trading which is the true danger, as the technologies which now dominate market trading are agnostic of human-based warnings and insights, and instead simply trade on momentum. This means there are and will be dangerous run-ups and losses in shares. The article points out that only 10% of equity trading now occurs from traditional discretionary human traders. Overall, the piece warns that the current market structure runs very large risks of volatility getting out of hand, and ETFs being forced to dump way more shares than the market can absorb, compounding losses.

FINSUM: This argument is what we would refer to as a “snowball” risk, as it basically discusses the multiple levels of knock-on effects from an initial jump in volatility, which would then be followed by algorithmic selling, then ETF selling, and the cycle continues.

(New York)

It was long awaited, but still hit the market like a hammer. It was one of those things that you can prepare for over a long period, yet are inevitably shocked when it arrives. In this case, it was the long-awaited release of a zero fee index fund. Fidelity was the first to do it, and while it was anticipated, the move is likely to have far-reaching effects on the industry. For instance, one of the big changes is that large index funds will likely no longer pay licensing fees to the indexes themselves. At the same time though, indexes will proliferate for more narrow and niche areas designed to track all manner of themes. Fees will likely continue to fall, even on the more complex products.

FINSUM: Asset management is seeing a very serious race to the bottom, which is reflected in share prices lately. Two thoughts come to mind. Firstly, those with huge scale will be the big winners as the industry grows more consolidated. Secondly, how long before retirement funds seeing a reckoning and a big move out of expensive products (they are paying an average of 61 bp in fees)?

New York)

Fidelity made history this week by introducing the first zero fee funds, which will track very broad self-indexed markets. Fidelity’s move is somewhat of a ploy, and definitely a demonstration of scale, as the company has many ways to profit from a customer once it has them in the door. But don’t be fooled, as fees aren’t everything. In fact, there are significant differences in performance even between index trackers of the same benchmark, like the S&P 500, and the differences between them can add up to a whole lot more than the difference in fees. For instance, Schwab and Vanguard already have broad index trackers at 3 and 6 basis points of fees, so hardly a big difference to zero, especially if their performance is better.

FINSUM: “Zero” definitely changes things, but once you are in the sub-15 bp fee category, performance is going to make a bigger difference than fees.