Displaying items by tag: passive management

(New York)

Passive funds have seen a meteoric rise since the Financial Crisis, with AUM soaring by trillions. But within that huge growth, what have been the best returning passive funds? Financial Planning produced a slide show presenting the twenty best. The top performing funds list is dominated by the big three providers—BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, who also have 82% of all passive AUM. The top five returning funds are the SPDR S&P Biotech (XBI), Invesco Dynamic Pharmaceuticals ETF (PJP), the First Trust NYSE Arca Biotech ETF (FBT), the Invesco Nasdaq Internet ETF (PNQI), and the First Trust Dow Jones Internet ETF (FDN).

FINSUM: Looks like biotech and tech stocks had a great decade (nor surprise there). The rest of the top twenty is similarly dominated by tech and healthcare, but consumer stocks, defense, and semiconductors also show up.

(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)

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.