All posts by MarketsMuse Staff Reporter

London’s Oct 11 “Euro Trading Summit” Said To Be Oversubscribed By Leading Euro-land PMs and Dealing Desk Heads; ETF Live Trading Session a Major Attraction

    Considering the issuance calendar is chock full of interesting, high yield  deals, we’re hearing that tix for the Oct 11 European Trading & Investing Summit at the May Fair Hotel in London are oversubscribed.

Then again, when taking a look at the “who’s who” of European PM’s and senior dealing desk traders that will be in attendance,  coupled with a trading session that will include “live rounds” fired into the ETF marketplace, and followed by a private cocktail/networking  reception, its no surprise this single-day event could prove to be the single-best place for top Euro fund managers to be on that upcoming Thursday.

Aside from the live fire ETF session being hosted by New York-based WallachBeth Capital’s Andy McOrmond, the program agenda includes interactive, forum discussions covering FX, Fixed Income Derivatives and Alternative Assets: Searching for Alpha.

Noted Andy McOrmond, “We know that the folks at MarketsMedia organize good programs, and because this particular conference is drawing in the top ETF-focused PMs and traders, we already know there won’t be enough seats to accommodate everyone.”

2012 Equity Options Conference-Industry Elite To Attend Sep 12-13

For those institutional fund managers, hedge fund traders and anyone else that’s tired of watching the volatility shrink,  the Futures Industry Association is joining with the Options Industry Council to host a special conference this week (Sept 12 & 13th) at the New York Marriott Marquis.

However dry these programs tend to be, we’re actually excited about the Thursday Sept 13 (11:15 am) program “Changing Execution Landscape” whose panel members will include WallachBeth Capital Pres/COO David Beth, TABB Group’s Andy Nybo and Vishal Gupta, head of execution for Volant.

Citi Launches Intelligent Options Algorithms

 

Citi has added intelligent options algorithms for U.S. equity options to its suite of advanced electronic trading strategies.

The algorithms are intended to provide traders with speed, liquidity and the desired degree of exposure, using Citi’s proprietary smart routing logic, which provides liquidity and price improvement while avoiding information leakage.

“The intended users of the new option algos are buy-side traders looking to intelligently work option orders systematically using Citi’s advanced algorithmic logic,” said Kevin Murphy, head of U.S. options electronic execution at bulge bracket bank Citi. “Traders get the added benefit of having each ‘child’ order eligible for liquidity and price improvement opportunities via Citi’s proprietary smart order router.”

Platforms combining execution, analytics and risk management have become the de facto standard of care for market practitioners as algorithmic and high-frequency trading strategies have proliferated across asset classes.

Fellow bulge bracket bank Credit Suisse recently launched in the Asia-Pacific region AES Guerrilla 2012, an agile trading strategy to assist investors in sourcing liquidity.

Credit Suisse’s AES, or Advanced Execution Services, team developed Guerrilla 2012 for clients trading in Asia-Pacific equity markets, whether they are calm or volatile, liquid or illiquid.

“Guerrilla has long been one of the most popular trading strategies in the U.S. and Europe, and now Guerrilla 2012 brings our algorithmic offering to clients in Asia,” said Hani Shalabi, head of AES for Asia-Pacific at Credit Suisse. “This is one algorithm which is flexible and intuitive enough to adapt real time to current market conditions.”

The options space is a comparatively late arrival to cutting-edge trading techniques, but it is catching up. Continue reading

Assessing the Merits of an ETF: Debunking Common Myths

Extract of white paper published by Chris Hempstead, Head of ETF Trade Execution for WallachBeth Capital LLC

With respect to analyzing and selecting ETFs, one of the most common and frustrating mistakes that I overhear is “..unless the fund has at least some minimum AUM ($50mm in many cases), or has average daily trading volume less than [some other arbitrary number] (say 250k shares) it should be avoided…”

Some other arguments against ETFs go so far as to suggest that “..ETFs need to have a certain history or track record before they should be considered…” Adding insult to injury is the claim that “investors are at risk of losing all their money if an ETF shuts down.”

In light of recent articles being picked up by media from New York to Seattle, I would like to dismiss a few of these common, yet unwarranted reasons to avoid an ETF based solely on AUM, ADV or track record.

 First, let’s address AUM:

“ETFs with less than $50mm should be avoided”

In order for an ETF to come to market (list on an exchange) the fund needs to have shares created. This process is often referred to as “seeding”. The ‘seeder’ is the initial investor who delivers into the custodial bank the assets required to back the initial tradable shares of the ETF in the secondary market. ETFs issue shares in what are known as creation units. The vast majority of ETFs have creation unit sizes of 25k, 50k or 100k shares.

When a ‘new’ fund comes to market, they are usually seeded with at least 2 units of the fund. There are very few examples of ETFs that come to market with more than $5mm in AUM or an excess of 200k shares outstanding. One recent exception comes to mind: Pimco’s BOND launched with ~$100mm AUM and 1mm shares outstanding.

Understanding that ETFs have to start somewhere, it would be difficult to explain how more than 55% of ETFs (excluding ETNs, Leveraged ETFs and Inverse ETFs) have garnered AUM in excess of $50mm.

In other words, someone had to take a close look and invest into the funds. The ‘I will if you will’ mentality is probably not how the most successful fund managers find ways to outperform.

Ten of the top thirty performing ETFs year to date have AUM below $50mm.

(EGPT, TAO, HGEM, IFAS, SOYB, PKB, RTL, QQQV, ROOF and RWW)

Congratulations to the pioneers who ‘went it alone’, as they say. Continue reading

ETFs move into long-term investing mainstream

By Murray Coleman

–Evidence mounts that ETFs aren’t just trading tools

–More retirement funds, endowments adopting ETFs

–ETF advisers remain largely long term in focus

Since turning to exchange-traded funds to build investment portfolios for high-net-worth and institutional clients more than a decade ago, adviser Rob DeHollander says he has seen a stigma form around the industry.

Contrary to popular views that ETFs contributed to the “flash crash” in May 2010 and other high-frequency trading mishaps, a growing number of conservative investors managing endowments and large pension funds are turning to ETFs, notes the co-founder of DeHollander & Janse. The firm in Greenville, S.C., manages about $100 million in assets.

“There’s no doubt ETFs are popular with hedge funds and day traders,” Mr. DeHollander says. “But they’re also finding broader acceptance among institutional investors and wealth managers with longer-term investment strategies.”

How much is a source of rising industry debate. A recent Deutsche Bank study found that advisers with discretionary control over client portfolios and more than $100 million in assets in 2011 overwhelmingly accounted for the biggest chuck of ETF assets held by big, institutional-level investors. Continue reading

Industry Sounds Off On Paying ETF Market Makers

Courtesy of James Armstrong

If issuers of exchange-traded funds could pay to attract market makers to their products, would there be more liquidity in ETFs? Or would paying market-makers create a dangerous precedent and harm long-term investors? Or, is Tim Quast, MD of trading analytics firm “Modern Networks IR” correct when suggesting to the SEC in his comment letter “..paying market makers could constitute a racketeering felony and would increase speculative, short-term trading rather than focusing the markets on capital formation..”?

Both Nasdaq and NYSE Arca have proposed programs allowing ETF issuers to pay fees to the exchanges for market-maker support. The proposals are similar to a program already implemented on the BATS exchange, which has a handful of ETF listings. These proposals, according to comment letters to the Securities and Exchange Commission, are drawing strong reactions from key industry figures.

The Investment Company Institute has come out in favor of the measures, arguing they could result in narrower spreads and more liquid markets. In a letter to the SEC, ICI’s general counsel, Ari Burstein, said the organization has long advocated changes to increase the efficiency of markets. “As ETF sponsors, ICI members have a strong interest in ensuring that the securities markets are highly competitive, transparent and efficient,” Burstein said. “Liquid markets are critical for ETFs, particularly smaller and less frequently traded ETFs.”

Vanguard, the mutual fund giant which also offers a number of ETFs, said it neither supports nor opposes the Nasdaq proposal and certainly does not support the NYSE Arca proposal, at least as it is currently structured.

In a letter concerning Nasdaq’s ETF initiative, Vanguard’s chief investment officer, Gus Sauter, said payments to market makers have the potential to distort the markets and create conflicts of interest. Though Nasdaq proposed several safeguards to prevent that from happening, Sauter suggested a longer review and comment period would be a good idea.

BlackRock, the nation’s largest ETF issuer is opposed to the idea of paying market-makers.

Continue reading

Collaring Multiple-Asset ETFs to Manage Tail Risk

Courtesy of Phil Gocke, Options Industry Council

Since the 2008-09 financial crisis and the central bank’s response of near zero interest rates, financial markets have been vacillating violently between risk-on and risk-off periods. This bipolar attitude toward risk has increased asset class correlations, negating the effective benefit of many traditional equity diversifiers. In this unpredictable climate, investors are focused on seeking strategies that offer downside protection but also upside participation.

One solution to achieving both of these often mutually exclusive desires is an option-based equity collar. A long collar strategy involves owning the underlying, while being long a put option with a strike price below the market and short a call option with a strike price above the market. This orientation of the strike prices makes each put and call option out-of-the-money (OTM). An option collar can provide portfolios with greater downside risk protection than standard multi-asset diversification programs, but they also allow for profits during risk-on rallies.

Recent research has examined the performance of the collar strategy against a range of exchange-traded funds (ETFs) across multiple asset classes, including equity, currency, commodity, fixed income and real estate. The resulting book, “Option-Based Risk Management in a Multi-Asset World,” was authored by Research Analyst Edward Szado and University of Massachusetts Isenberg School of Management Professor of Finance Thomas Schneeweis. Their analysis shows that for most of the asset classes considered, an option-based collar strategy, using six-month put purchases and consecutive one-month call writes, provides a holy grail of investing of improved risk-adjusted performance and significant risk reduction.

“Collar growth” (below) illustrates the benefit of an equity collar strategy on the popular SPDR S&P 500 (SPY) ETF. Over the 55-month study period ending Dec. 30, 2011, the 2% OTM passive SPY collar returned more than 22% (4.5% annually), while the long SPY experienced a loss of more than 9% (–2.1% annually). The collar earns its superior returns with less than half the risk as measured by the standard deviation (8.4% for the collar vs. 19.5% for SPY).

One of the most telling statistics supporting the potential benefit of equity collar protection is the maximum drawdown. During the study period, SPY experienced a maximum loss of 50.8% while the 2% OTM collar reduced this negative performance by four-fifths to a maximum loss of 11.1%. Continue reading

Light On Knight: Editorial Opinion

Editorial Opinion

In an era in which “CYA” is perhaps the most-used acronym by institutional fund managers focused on fiduciary responsibilities, its almost surprising to notice the many anecdotal remarks that point to a single-point-of reliance on Knight Capital’s role within the ETF marketplace.  Some would think it “shocking” that so many institutions were caught without having a chair when Knight stopped the music and instructed their customers to trade elsewhere.

Yes, based on volume/market share, Knight had become the single-largest “market-maker” for ETFs, as well as a broad universe of exchange-listed equities. Arguably, their pole position is courtesy of pay-to-play pacts with large equity stake holders and ‘strategic partners’ who control significant retail and institutional order flow; including household names such as TD Ameritrade, E-Trade and Blackrock.

This is not to suggest that Knight Capital has not earned its designation for being a formidable market-maker within the securities industry. Their most senior executives are deservedly well-regarded by peers, competitors and clients alike, and their trading capabilities are revered by many.

And yes, Knight’s most recent travails are, to a great extent the result of a  “bizarre software glitch” that corrupted the integrity of their order execution platform. There’s a reason why software is called soft-ware.

That said, this latest Wall Street fiasco–which resulted in a temporary disruption of NYSE trading and the permanent re-structuring of one of the biggest players on Wall Street who was rescued from the brink of total failure– is less about that firm being “too big to fail”,  or the many spirited debates regarding “algorithms that have run amok”, or even the loudly-voiced and often under-informed shouts coming from politicians in Washington regarding the ‘pock-marked’ regulatory framework by which US securities markets operate.

This story is about something much more basic: dependence by seemingly savvy fiduciaries  on a single, market-making firm that figuratively and literally trade against customers in order to administer the daily execution of literally hundreds of millions of dollars worth of retail and institutional customer orders. This happens, all despite the same fiduciaries  commonly inserting the phrase “best execution” within their very own mandates, internal policy documents and regulatory filings.

Many of these fiduciaries may not truly appreciate where Knight resides in the trading market ecosystem, the actual meaning of  “best execution”, or how they can achieve true best execution without being reliant on a single firm whose first priority is not to the client, but to themselves and their shareholders, who depend on the firm’s  ability to extract trading profits when ‘facilitating’ customer orders as being the ultimate metric for the value of their employee bonus and/or their ownership of shares in that enterprise.

CNBC, Barrons, and IndexUniverse (among others) have been following this story closely, and we point to excerpts from a reader comment posted in response to IU’s Aug 6 column  “4 ETF Lessons From Knight”  by Dave Nadig: Continue reading

Options Trading is Not Dead, Institutions Ramping Up

Courtesy of TABB Forum

Options trading volumes may be down across the industry but the buy side continues to remain captivated by the potential of using options. TABB Group expects options volume to decline by as much as 10 percent in 2012, yet a combination of greater buy-side adoption and increased focus on managing risk will set the foundation for future growth, especially when investors refocus their attention on equity markets.

Global equity markets are under stress and for good reason. Many observers consider the markets to be broken, with structural inequities that favor professional investors over the uniformed.

Add to that slowing global growth, continued political uncertainty and new regulations that threaten to indelibly shift market structure and you have most of the reasons that can explain today’s depressed U.S. equity trading volumes, which, this year through July, are off more than 14 percent compared with the same period in 2011.

The impact can also be seen in U.S. options markets. However, the drop has been less severe, with trading off just 7 percent this year, through July. A number of factors are contributing to this phenomenon, including greater adoption of options strategies by the buy side as well as replication strategies that use short-term options as a proxy for the underlying security. But perhaps the biggest factor contributing to the disparity can be observed in the new ways that buy-side firms are using options in their strategies.

Growing Sophistication and the Rising Complexity of Strategies
The buy side is becoming more sophisticated in its options trading strategies with traders at both asset managers and hedge funds using more-complex strategies in their trading activities. Multi-legged options trades make up a growing proportion of trading volume, as the buy side looks for cheaper and more efficient ways to manage exposure. And as buy-side trading activities become more complex, investment managers are investing in more powerful technology systems to support the growing complexity of both their front- and back-office derivative activities.

Buy-side firms are upgrading to newer versions of order management systems that can support options and provide real-time pricing, analytics and FIX connectivity to broker trading desks. Traders requiring more sophisticated functionality are deploying best of breed execution management systems alongside existing trading platforms in order to support complex orders and algorithmic trading capabilities. Continue reading

Knight Seeks Lifeline After $440 Mil Loss : What’s Next?

Courtesy of Olly Ludwig/IndexUniverse

Knight Capital (NYSE: KCG), the biggest ETF market maker in the U.S., is seeking financing after saying that a trading glitch involving its systems on Wednesday that affected 148 stocks will result in a $440 million pre-tax loss. The company’s stock was down 45 percent in early morning trade.

“The company is actively pursuing its strategic and financing alternatives to strengthen its capital base,” Knight said on Thursday in a press release, stressing that it will be business as usual for the company in the wake of the wayward trading episode.

The swiftly moving story is one of the more astonishing developments in the world of electronic securities trading, where Knight plays a dominant role. Industry sources say that whatever reputational challenges Knight faces at this very moment pale in comparison to the attractiveness of its business, or at least particular pieces of it.

The Jersey City, N.J.-based firm, the biggest ETF U.S. market maker, said in the press release that while the whole episode “severely impacted” its capital base, its broker-dealer units remain in compliance with net capital requirements.

*Editor insert: MarketsMuse spoke with one industry expert, who requests no mention of his name, but framed the Knight story as follows: “This is exactly the type of episode that should cause institutional fund managers to re-think how/where their orders are executed. Relying on a single market-making firm–which by definition, is counter-intuitive to the notion of best execution–is a recipe for disaster. The right approach is to use a qualified, agency-only liquidity aggregators– firms that focus on capturing best prices by canvassing a broad list of market-makers. The latter approach addresses the PM’s fiduciary obligation, and significantly mitigates dependence on one market-maker, particularly one that may have been perceived for being “too big to fail.”

The Accident That Happened

On Wednesday, Knight saw its stock drop by a third due to the wayward program trading involving its system. The episode was reportedly triggered by a human error that caused hundreds of trades to be executed in minutes instead of over a longer period.

“An initial review by Knight indicates that a technology issue occurred in the company’s market-making unit related to the routing of shares of approximately 150 stocks to the NYSE,” the company said in a prepared statement on Wednesday.

For the full IndexUniverse coverage, click here

What’s Next? Single-Stock Futures. Here’s Why..

 

Industry Pro Thomas Halikias contributed the following “Single Stock Futures…A New Dawn?” to Tabb Forum. Excerpted version is below, full article available by clicking on Tabb’s logo..

In nearly every conversation about single stock futures – and they’re happening more frequently than ever these days – several typical misconceptions emerge:

  • “Futures?  We don’t trade futures.”
  • “Single stock futures? They don’t seem very liquid.”
  • “How do single stock futures minimize our U.S withholding tax?”

The product’s unfortunate association with speculative trading strategies often found in illiquid commodities has been a significant barrier in extolling the many virtues of this sophisticated financing and stock lending instrument. While customers can and do trade single stock futures in a speculative manner, the more subtle uses of them can be easily overlooked. Additionally, trading single stock futures does not specifically require Commodity Future Trading Commission (CFTC) registration – exemptions are available for most equity-based strategies.

Single stock futures can be packaged against the underlying equity to either finance a long equity position or to “lend” the underlying equity to parties interested in obtaining the long shares for an extended period of time.

For example, if an institution wishes to finance a specific equity position, it would sell the underlying equity simultaneously with the purchase of the equity’s single stock future. This simultaneous transaction is called an exchange for physical (EFP) and bears absolutely no directional market risk. The pricing differential is based solely on market financing rates.

For a “lending” transaction, the institution would perform a similar simultaneous equity for future EFP but in this case the pricing differential would be based on the market rate for borrowing the stock. In both transactions, the institution would select the appropriate future expiration cycle to match their desired time frame for financing or “lending” the security. Continue reading

Buying an ETF for More Than The Ticker

Courtesy of Forbes Contributor Ari Weinberg

July 30

If you invest in exchange-traded funds, you’ve probably heard about the forthcoming service from IndexUniverse.

If you really follow ETFs, you’ve probably wondered what took them so long.

Years in the making, publisher IndexUniverse is finally rolling out its own ratings and analysis service for ETFs. Currently in commercial beta for financial advisers, institutions and other professionals, ETF Analytics takes a different tack than uber, fund-rating firm Morningstar (MORN).

IndexUniverse rolls up its individual ETF analysis into both letter and number grades, while leaning on its current ETF classification system for sectors, themes, styles and more. The service is launching with evaluations on all equity-based ETFs and will eventually cover fixed income, currencies and alternatives.

But Zagat of ETFs it’s not. And, at an initial price of $3000, the service is not for the faint of heart or light of wallet.

For top-level insight on what an individual investor can glean from the new product, I sent over a few questions to Matt Hougan, President of ETF Analytics for IndexUniverse.

AW: What is the biggest or most common mistake investors make when evaluating an ETF?

MH: Just buying tickers.

We see far too many investors just buying the ETFs they are familiar with, or trusting how ETFs are marketed, without looking under the hood.

Take the iShares FTSE China 25 Index Fund (FXI). It has the bulk of the assets for ETF investing in China. But the truth is: It does a terrible job capturing China. FXI has no exposure to technology and very little exposure to consumers.  Eighty percent of the portfolio is invested in old-school, ex-government firms, with none of the entrepreneurial, middle-class-driven growth that most investors want from China.

A fund like SPDR S&P China (GXC) gives you much better exposure, but investors don’t bother to look.

AW: Should buyers differentiate between products for “traders” and “investors?” Continue reading

“QE3 Slated for August, the EU World Will Not End, China Could Hit a Wall

Market commentary (excerpt of July 25 desk notes distributed to institutional fund managers) courtesy of  Ron Quigley, Managing Director/Head of Fixed Income Syndicate for Mischler Financial Group. While not ETF-centric per se, its a good read!

Ron Quigley

Tonight we’re taking a bit of a reprieve from the standard dire EU news by delivering quite a different opinion of where the world’s headed.  It’s great intelligence from one of my very senior source relationships on the street.  It’s sure to get your attention whether you are Treasury/Funding, Syndicate, buy-side accounts, public service commissions or senior bank administrators……

Blackstone has it’s prognosticator in Byron Wien.  You’ll recall his recent blog in which his trusted source forecast an end-of Europe.

The “seer” was referred to only as “the smartest man in Europe”. Generally speaking Wien has often quoted his brilliant, worldly and wealthy oracle for the past decade.  Unfortunately after much digging, our only profile of Wien’s “source” is that he is 90 years old, owns a Bentley, a private jet and lives in one of the Cote d’Azur’s three “Caps” which would pin-point him in either Cap d’Antibes, Cap d’Ail or St. Jean Cap Ferrat.

One would think that should pretty much be a giveaway but if you know anything about the French Riviera there are many wealthy old people who would fit-the-bill.  Today, our intelligence comes from a very respected international banker at one of the world’s largest financial institutions.  We could also characterize the person as “brilliant”, “worldly” and “wealthy” but we prefer to pitch the person as much more down-to-earth….as he would want.  There is certainly no hot-air here and substantive macro insights.

Here are the take-away’s straight from our “source’s” mouth.  We hope it’s revealing and helpful:

Continue reading

Don’t Forget Index Trading Costs

 

Courtesy of Paul Amery

Remember to check the assumptions made for the cost of trading when examining a new index concept.  ( Editor note: read between the lines, even though the phrase “best execution” is missing from this piece, the article should inspire thoughtful consideration re what true best execution entails).

Vanguard’s warning of the perils of index data mining is timely. As the number of “smart beta” index concepts increases, each promising superior performance than old-fashioned, capitalisation-weighted benchmarks, the possibility of investors getting hoodwinked also grows.

Just about anything can be used to “predict” something else if you use historical data series creatively enough. According to fund manager David Leinweber, the Wall Street Journal reports, annual butter production in Bangladesh “explained” 75% of the annual returns of the S&P 500 over a 13-year period. If you throw in data for US cheese production and the combined sheep population of the US and Bangladesh, Leinweber says, you get to “forecast” US stock prices with 99% accuracy.

Not everyone got the joke. A number of firms asked Leinweber to share his data on Bangladeshi butter production so that they could build a trading strategy around them, the WSJ tells us. Were any index and ETF providers looking for a new smart beta concept among them, by any chance?

Vanguard has its own axe to grind in all this, we shouldn’t forget. The firm sticks religiously to using traditional, cap-weighted indices as the basis for its passive funds, arguing that anything else is an active bet on market behaviour and should be recognised as such. I’ve argued before that this is as much as a commercial strategy as anything else—Vanguard’s huge size precludes it from even considering index concepts that are in any way capacity-constrained, as many non-cap-weighted approaches are. Continue reading

Taker-Maker Cupcake Baker- Nasdaq BX Options Fee Scheme Takes Hold

 

Courtesy of Peter Chapman/TradersMagazine

The launch of the Nasdaq OMX BX options exchange, at the end of June, marked not only the debut of the industry’s 10th exchange, but an expansion of the use of taker-maker pricing.

In contrast to the conventional maker-taker pricing model whereby exchanges pay liquidity providers and charge liquidity takers, BX Options will pay liquidity takers and charge liquidity suppliers. While the scheme is relatively common in the cash equities business, its usage has been limited in options.

Nasdaq has said it expects BX Options to appeal to broker-dealers who are big takers of liquidity and may not be receiving payment for their order flow from intermediaries; or they may be unsure if they are being adequately compensated by their intermediaries. BX Options will not otherwise facilitate payment for order flow.

Professional traders who trade directly on the exchanges rather than go through an intermediary are expected to benefit. So too are some retail brokerages that deliver mostly market, or liquidity-taking, orders to intermediaries.

“Competitively speaking, this is a positive,” said Gary Sjostedt, director of order routing and sales at TD Ameritrade. “It keeps the exchanges on their toes price-wise.”

The BOX Options Exchange actually pioneered the taker-maker pricing strategy in the options market in 2009, but was the only exchange using it until this year. Then, in early June, the International Securities Exchange switched 25 options classes to taker-maker pricing.

BX Options instituted taker-maker pricing on July 2, becoming the third exchange to do so. There are differences among the three offerings. In contrast to the ISE, BX Options will offer taker-maker pricing in all options traded in penny increments. In contrast to BOX, Nasdaq will limit the rebate strategy to customers only.

For most of the BX names, Nasdaq will pay 32 cents per contract on customer orders that take liquidity. That compares with 22 cents for BOX’s “regular” market and 30 cents for trades in its auction. ISE also pays 32 cents per contract. Continue reading

Euro-Zone ETFs-One Expert’s Contrarian Perspective

According to today’s NY Times, one of the world’s savviest investors is once again taking a contrarian view, and this time its Europe.

While Wall Street is continuing to wave a yellow flag whenever investing in European markets is discussed (after all, the widely-advertised risk of  “Greece contagion” remains at the forefront of most institutional investors minds),   Marc Lasry, founder and head of hedge fund Avenue Capital is decidedly color-blind, albeit perhaps with the exception of Spain and Italy.

Even though Lasry’s firm specializes in taking stakes in the distressed debt of individual companies, his macro outlook is worth considering by those whose investment style focus on specific sectors via use of ETPs.

“Europe isn’t going away, and the companies aren’t going away,” Mr. Lasry said. “You can never time a bottom. What you can do is a time a cycle and five years from now, people will say, ‘Why didn’t I buy?’ 

There is a broad list of Euro-market ETFs, but because this publication does not recommend the purchase or sale of any securities, savvy investors need to pick and choose to determine which products best meet their investing goals and horizons.

 

Post Peregrine Financial Fraud: Futures ETFs Offer Safe Haven For Commodities Players

Courtesy of Cinthia Murphy

In connection with all that news re futures broker Peregrine Financial’s fraud-induced collapse, Sal Gilbertie, head of Teucrium Fundsan ETF provider offering futures-based commodities ETFs—told IndexUniverse’s Correspondent Cinthia Murphy that futures-based ETFs might be the answer to retail investors’ futures-related concerns . Gilbertie, whose firm sponsors the red-hot, $100 million Teucrium Corn Fund (NYSEArca: CORN), argued that the transparency of the ETF structure ensures that investors’ interests are guarded closely.
Murphy: What makes fund providers like Teucrium immune to contagion from the negative publicity, or more importantly, from the apparent risks in the system? Where does the risk lie for an investor?

Gilbertie: I can only speak for Teucrium and what we do. There’s a lot of transparency in the publicly traded ETP system, something you don’t always see at the FCM level, as many of them are not publicly traded. As a NYSE listed security, any Teucrium ETP is subject to the SEC reporting requirements of a public company, including regular independent audits. In the futures market, investors are protected by the clearing mechanism that backs-up their margin. Investors that leave excess margin in the hands of their FCM subject this excess capital to risk. Non-public FCMs are not subject to the same level of SEC required scrutiny and regulation that applies to publicly traded ETPs. The Teucrium family of NYSE funds sweeps its excess capital from our FCM on a daily basis.

Murphy: Should we assume, then, that in light of all that has gone down with Refco and Peregrine, investors will be less willing to leave excess capital sitting around? How would that affect the system?

Gilbertie: Professionals sweep their excess margin daily. Smaller investors may find it expensive and difficult to regularly sweep excess capital. As such, these investors may turn to professionally managed futures accounts or to publicly listed commodity-based ETPs that meet their investment objectives. Continue reading

SEC Punts on Payments to ETF Market Makers

Courtesy of Rosalyn Retkwa

 

The Securities and Exchange Commission has decided not to decide yet whether to approve proposals by Nasdaq and the New York Stock Exchange to pay market makers to make better markets in thinly traded ETFs. The proposals would require an exemption from a current prohibition against such payments.

Rather than approving or rejecting the idea, the SEC decided last Wednesday, July 11, to seek another round of comments on pilot projects put forth by Nasdaq and NYSE Arca (the electronic exhange formerly known as Archipelago). In its 83-page order instituting proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed pilots — posted on the SEC’s web site last Thursday — the SEC listed 27 questions asking for more input on specific points. “They’re keying up the issues,” said a source who asked not to be named.

Under the law, the SEC has 45 days to respond to these kinds of regulatory filings by the exchanges, with an automatic right to extend the initial deadline by another 45 days.

July 11 was the 90-day mark for the Nasdaq’s proposal, and while the SEC had until August 14 to respond to NYSE Arca, it decided to consider both proposals with a joint order — a suggestion made by Vanguard, the mutual fund and ETF sponsor headquartered in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, which filed separate comment letters on both proposals. Continue reading