(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)?

(San Francisco)

Tech stocks have two very unappealing characteristics right now. They are at once both very expensive and increasingly vulnerable, as evidenced by their major selloff over the last week and a half. However, there are cheap tech shares out there, and Barron’s wants to share them with you. The five cheapest tech stocks in the Nasdaq 100 are Micron Technology, Western Digital, Seagate Technology, Lam Research, and Applied Materials. Their P/E ratios range from a low of 5.2x to a high of 11.9x.

FINSUM: Just a note of caution—these stocks were not selected to be good value, they were presented solely on the basis of valuation, so the multiples may be very representative of the quality of their businesses.

(San Francisco)

Facebook had an absolutely historic plunge last week, losing $120 bn of market cap in an afternoon. It has not fared so well since either, as many of its tech brethren have also seen big losses (like Twitter and Netflix). There are also mounting fears about a fundamentally darker future given the scandals and controversies it has become involved in. All that said, the stock still looks like a buying opportunity, at least according to some Wall Street analysts. The key to playing the company is not to wait for signs of margins and revenue stability. “Many investors prefer to wait for the appearance of margin stability … We understand this, but stocks tend to bottom and recover well ahead of margins and trade at much higher multiples when they do”, says a stock analyst.

FINSUM: Investors really need to contextualize this loss. Revenue growth rates came in 1% below expectations, leading to a massive loss. We think there is a good buying opportunity here.

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.