The Wizards of ETFs – Behind the Curtain (2/2)

This is a review of a session from the Money Management Institute’s 2012 Fall Solution Conference.  This is part two of a two-part series.  You can read part one here.

Moderator:

  • Benjamin T. Fulton, Managing Director of Global ETFs, Invesco Powershares Capital Management, LLC

Panelists:

  • Sam Turner, Director of Large Cap Portfolio Management at Riverfront Investment Group
  • Jill Iacono Mavro, Managing Director, Head of National Accounts, State Street Global Advisors – $337 billion in ETF assets globally, 94% in US, SPY launched in 1993
  • Dodd Kittsley, Senior Product Manager & Head of ETP Research, iShares

How much weight should advisors put on liquidity when evaluating an ETF?

There are two levels of liquidity: primary and secondary markets, Mavro said. On the primary market, an ETF is as liquid as the underlying index that it tracks. It depends on how easy is it for authorized market participants to trade the basket of securities that represent the index. On the secondary market, liquidity is defined by how often the ETF is traded. The more it is traded, the thinner the spread between the bid and ask prices. Advisors should look at both levels together, not just one or the other.

Turner disagreed and stated that primary market liquidity and fees are the two worst reasons to select ETFs.  Riverfront focuses primarily on exposure and have never had an issue getting out of an ETF due to lack of primary market liquidity, he said.

Secondary market liquidity can become an issue when investing ETFs according to Michael Jones, also from Riverfront Investments, who was in the audience.  He provided an example where Riverfront was the seed investor for an international ETF that was currency-hedged (The ETF happened to be DBX MSCI EAFE Hedged Equity Fund, symbol: DBEF). Primary market liquidity wasn’t a problem for them since they were working directly with the authorized participant and had great execution.  However the use of the currency hedge became more and more expensive to the point where they had to pull their investment due to the high marginal trading costs of bringing on each additional client, he said.

Should You Avoid ETFs with Low AUM?
An article in Barrons makes the case that low AUM is not a good liquidity indicator for ETFs:
“…asset levels aren’t always the best proxy for liquidity. Unlike a stock, an ETF can still have strong liquidity even if its trading volume is low or its assets are tiny. That’s because the underlying stocks’ or bonds’ liquidity is usually the best way to measure an ETF’s real ease of trading. Barron’s asked market-making firm Knight Capital to rate the liquidity of 30 small ETFs whose 2012 returns are about double those of the S&P 500 as of early November. If you judge ETF tradability by the way its components trade, as Knight does, you’ll find lots of low-asset ETFs with more-than-expected liquidity. “I wouldn’t shy away from ETFs that have low volume or low assets. You just have to be smart about how you trade it,” says Eric Lichtenstein, managing director of Knight’s ETF trading desk.”

Continue reading

Advertisements

The Wizards of ETFs – Behind the Curtain (1/2)

This is a summary of a session from the Money Management Institute’s 2012 Fall Solution Conference entitled ETFs: To Develop or Not Develop?  This is part one of a two-part series.  You can jump to part two by clicking here.

Moderator:

  • Benjamin T. Fulton, Managing Director of Global ETFs, Invesco Powershares Capital Management, LLC

Panelists:

  • Sam Turner, Director of Large Cap Portfolio Management at Riverfront Investment Group
  • Jill Iacono Mavro, Managing Director, Head of National Accounts, State Street Global Advisors – $337 billion in ETF assets globally, 94% in US, SPY launched in 1993
  • Dodd Kittsley, Senior Product Manager & Head of ETP Research, iShares

How has the trend of advisors shifting towards Rep as Portfolio Manager (RPM) changed your business model?

Turner believes RPM is more of a challenge than a threat since it is the end client experience that matters. Competition from RPM raises the bar, with each crisis causing a shakeout of weaker products and players. The next crisis may not be a market downturn but could be a repeat of 2009 when many government central banks were trying to stimulate their economies through quantitative easing, he said.

Many of the advisors who Turner has spoken to are over-weighted in cash because their client’s are nervous. If the market continues its current upswing into 2013, then this lack of participation could be a risk for these advisors, he warned. Their clients may fire them because they were too cautious.

RPM has also been a huge growth engine outside the US, Kittsley stated. Financial transparency rules enacted in the UK will be a huge catalyst for growth in that market. ETFs are well-suited for managed books of business.

StateStreet’s distribution efforts started in the RIA segment, Mavro explained. They treat it more like an institutional service model. iShares and PowerShares have been focusing on RPM for many years and it has become a differentiator for them on larger platforms Regulatory reform targeting advisors running discretionary portfolios often result in more outsourcing, which benefits firms like Riverfront, she claimed.

Related WM Today Posts
Has Rep as PM Growth Peaked?
Rep as PM: The Inside Scoop

Continue reading

Asset Allocation: Is Modern Portfolio Theory Dead? (2/2)

This is the second part of the summary of a session from the Money Management Institute’s 2012 Fall Solution Conference. You can read part 1 here.

Moderator:
  • Michael Jones, Chairman and Chief Investment Officer, Riverfront Investment Group
Panelists:
  • Colin Moore, Chief Investment Officer, Columbia Management, $339 billion AUM
  • Howard Present, President and Chief Executive Officer, F-Squared Investments
  • Steve Murray, Director of Asset Allocation Strategies, Russell Investment Group

How do fees affect your product decisions taking into consideration QE3 and a persistent low rate environment? Does paying 30-50 bps for bond allocations affect your product choices?

Murray said that fees do affect their product decisions, but that they always try to identify strong managers and the fees are a tradeoff versus the additional return that they’re expected to provide. Since Russell has a manager of managers structure allows them to move between managers with different fee levels as well as incorporate other products such as ETFs and mutual funds.

Fees have a higher impact when the product they’re attached to performs like Beta, Present ob served. Over the last decade, it was very difficult to extract value from equities as an asset class, while bonds appear that they will be difficult going forward. In 2008, the average target date fund was down 28%, so it didn’t matter if a manager was slightly above or slightly below that average. Relative performance in a down market is rarely appreciated by clients. You should be more aggressive with fees on beta products versus those that are designed to generate alpha, he said.

Does your philosophy of using low cost, transparent, liquid beta in the form of ETFs make it harder for your products to coexist on a sponsor platform alongside more traditional ones? — Randy Bullard

Jones proposed that their philosophy, which combines stocks, bonds and ETFs into dynamic allocation solutions is complementary to the more traditional solutions (like Russell). there is more than one way to create value besides picking stocks from a narrow slice of an asset allocation pie chart. They added another value dimension by adjusting the amounts allocated in each slice of the market based on the prices and momentum in each asset class. It’s not an either or decision to use their products or traditional. There’s a philosophical diversification that can be complimentary instead of competitive. Continue reading