Displaying items by tag: fees

A major milestone occurred at the end of 2023 as assets in index funds exceeded assets held by active funds. The major factor behind this shift is an increasing preference for ETFs, while mutual funds are falling out of favor. While there has been much focus on the impressive growth rates of active ETFs, the larger narrative is that ETFs are displacing mutual funds, both active and passive. 

According to Cerulli Associates, active ETFs had $129 billion of inflows last year, while there were $65 billion of inflows into passive mutual funds. In contrast, passive ETFs had inflows of $463 billion, while active mutual funds had net outflows of $576 billion.

A major factor is that ETFs have lower costs while also offering more transparency and liquidity. They are also more tax-efficient than their mutual fund counterparts. Additionally, many advisors are now focusing more on asset allocation than security selection, which is also contributing to growth of ETFs. 

Cerulli also noted that more advisors are moving to independent firms from large broker-dealers. “Those advisors, according to our data, believe less in the merits of active investing,” remarked Matt Apkarian, Cerulli’s associate director of product development.

Another trend is that some portion of outflows from active mutual funds are going into active ETFs. Some new issues in the category have been gaining traction, and more asset managers are jumping on the trend. 

Finsum: Last year, there were net inflows into active and passive ETFs and passive mutual funds. But there were huge outflows from passive mutual funds. A major factor is that ETFs are increasingly in favor due to lower costs and more transparency and liquidity.

Morningstar recently completed its annual review of the US Model Portfolio Landscape. It noted that assets under management (AUM) in model portfolios reached $424 billion, a nearly 50% increase over the last 2 years. 

Some of the drivers of growth include enabling an easier investment process, providing access to institutional investors’ insights, and increased fund selection. It allows advisors to outsource elements of the investment management process to the extent that they feel comfortable. The net benefit is that it allows for more time to be spent on client engagement, financial planning, and growing the business. 

Another factor is lower costs. On average, model portfolios are 19 basis points cheaper than comparable mutual funds. In terms of market share, Blackrock and Capital Group are the leaders with $84 billion and $75 billion, respectively representing 37.5% of total AUM. Launching of new model portfolios has slowed as there is saturation in many areas like income, ESG, passive, or active. Instead, new launches are predicted to focus on greater customization such as optimizing tax efficiency.

Finsum: Model portfolio AUM has risen by nearly 50% over the last two years. Reasons for growth include easing the investment process management process for advisors, lower costs, and a greater variety of options.

There is no question that investing in low-cost mutual funds or exchange-traded funds that mirror a benchmark index is a popular strategy to potentially reduce the impact of fees on a portfolio. In fact, many of these passive index strategies have often outperformed more costly actively managed funds. However, while tax efficient, they are unable to fully take advantage of short-term market volatility, according to Neale Ellis and Matthew Michaels of Fidelis Capital. On the other hand, direct indexing has become an attractive alternative to a portfolio of low-cost funds and ETFs, and unlike owning a mutual fund or ETF, an investor directly owns a basket of individual stocks that tracks a designated benchmark index. The strategy also allows greater flexibility during periods of volatility to selectively harvest losses while still closely tracking the benchmark. This is due to the fact that individual equities tend to see much higher volatility than a diversified mutual fund or ETF. This increases the opportunity for tax loss harvesting. Realizing losses in a portfolio can offset capital gains, which creates tax savings. Failing to harvest those losses during periods of short-term volatility could lead to lower results, essentially leaving money on the table.

Finsum:While passive index ETFs are tax efficient, they are unable to fully take advantage of short-term market volatility, which is something that direct indexing can do.

Allan Roth, founder of Wealth Logic LLC recently penned an article for etf.com where he provided his opinion on direct indexing vs. ETFs. While direct indexing is forecasted to attract assets at a faster pace than ETFs, according to a recent report by Cerulli Associates, Roth believes that direct indexing is not better than ETFs. While he does mention the benefits of direct indexing such as tax advantages, customization, and low annual costs, he asked, “But is direct indexing better than ETFs?" He added, "Generally they are not, in my view, at least not compared to the best ETFs.” He uses the S&P 500 as an example. Vanguard’s VOO ETF has a 0.03% annual expense ratio, while direct indexing typically has an annual fee of at least 0.40% annually. Roth does say that the 0.37 percentage point differential could be made up from the benefit of tax-loss harvesting in the early years, but he believes it likely won’t continue. That is because the stock market “generally moves up in the long run, so each year there is less and less tax-loss harvesting. Yet the fees continue.” In addition, after a few years, he says that “the tax benefit is minimal, and all that is left are fees and complexities.”

Finsum:Financial planner Allan Roth recently wrote an article for etf.com where he stated that direct indexing is not better than ETFs since direct indexing is more expensive and its tax benefits are minimal after a few years.

In a recent article for the Wall Street Journal, author Mark Hulbert defends the use of ETFs in opposition to people who say direct indexing is a superior method of investing. Many brokerage firms that have created direct-indexing platforms say direct indexing is better as it allows investors to create a customized index without stocks that they don't want and also can strategically harvest tax losses. However, Hubert believes that most of direct indexing’s supposed advantages can be duplicated by ETFs at a lower cost. For instance, customizing an index can be duplicated. According to Lawrence Tint, the former U.S. CEO of BGI, the organization that created iShares, now part of BlackRock, anybody could achieve the same result by buying a generic index ETF and then selling short the stocks that we want to avoid. Tint also doubts that direct indexing’s ability to harvest tax losses outweighs the cost savings of investing in a low-cost ETF. He stated that, over time, an investor who sells his losers from his direct-index portfolio will increasingly be left with a portfolio of mostly unrealized gains. So, the benefit of being able to decide when to take tax losses will fall over time. An investor will also have to pay higher fees each year to maintain the direct index. In addition, he also noted that tax-loss harvesting is only applicable to taxable accounts.

Finsum:In an article for the Wall Street Journal, author Mark Hulbert defends the use of ETFs against direct indexing as its ability to harvest tax losses outweighs the cost savings of a low-cost ETF, while customization can be replicated by buying an index and shorting the stocks you don’t want.