Tag Archives: fxh

ETFs Passive No More in Challenge to $7.8 Trillion Market

By Christopher Condon on June 26, 2012

Exchange-traded funds are posing a new threat to the $7.8 trillion market for active mutual funds by challenging the notion ETFs are only good for tracking benchmarks.

The $552 million First Trust Health Care AlphaDex Fund (FXH) (FXH), offered by Wheaton, Illinois-based First Trust Portfolios LP, follows an index that selects and weights U.S. health-care stocks based on a proprietary mix of financial measures such as sales growth and return on assets. Since its creation in 2007, the ETF has beaten the S&P 500 Health Care Index — 52 stocks chosen to broadly represent the industry — by almost 6 percentage points a year, and the actively managed Fidelity Select Health Care Portfolio by 3 percentage points annually.

“This isn’t an ETF that’s trying to track a benchmark,” Todd Rosenbluth, an analyst at research firm S&P Capital IQ in New York, said in an interview. “Its aim is to beat it.”

The AlphaDex fund is one of 155 ETFs, collectively holding about $12 billion, that are blurring the line between active and passive investing and threatening to further erode the market share of traditional stock and bond mutual funds. Unlike their passive peers, which use broad indexes to match a benchmark’s return, their goal is to capture outperformance, or alpha. While their assets are still a tiny slice of the fund industry, the payoff for such ETFs is potentially enormous: The pool of money chasing market-beating returns is almost four times larger than the $2.1 trillion held by investors in passive products.

Pimco ETF

Asset managers for years have pondered how to effectively combine the security-selection element of actively managed mutual funds with the tradability, tax advantages and other efficiencies of ETFs. Most have been dissuaded by the product’s necessity to reveal its holdings daily, which allows dealers to create new shares by delivering large baskets of a fund’s underlying securities to the ETF.

Active managers, especially those focused on equities, say that transparency would make it too easy for others to front-run their movements or simply copy them without paying to be in their fund. Some firms, including BlackRock Inc., the world’s biggest ETF provider, have asked permission from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to introduce active ETFs that don’t reveal holdings daily. The agency hasn’t approved any such plans. Continue reading

Does Size Really Matter? (with ETF Returns)

According to Benzinga.com’s ETF Professor, its not necessarily the size of the ETF, but the motion when it comes to investor returns.

From Benzinga’s April 23 edition:

“..There are plenty of instances in life when bigger is better. When it comes to exchange-traded products, bigger isn’t always associated with better [4]. At least when it comes to what should be investors’ primary consideration: Returns.

It has been documented that ETFs and ETNs with low average daily volume [5] and an assets under management number that may not be viewed as impressive by the so-called experts can outperform. In fact, all investing in an ETF with a bigger AUM total does is lead investors to a bigger fund, not larger returns [6].

Fortunately, a move away AUM and average daily volume as the primary determinants of an ETF’s worth is already under way.

“Some of the traders we talk to are using AUM and ADV a lot less now,” said Chris Hempstead, head of institutional sales and trading at WallachBeth Capital. “Some hedge funds using ETFs to hedge might use the larger ETFs because they just need short-term exposure, but buy-side traders are using AUM and ADV less and less.”

The statistics back up the assertion that bigger isn’t always better with ETFs. In an interview with Benzinga, Hempstead noted that in the case of the nine Select Sector SPDRs, all have been outperformed by a comparable fund of smaller stature on a year-to-date basis. Continue reading

ETFs & Obamacare: The Broccoli ETF

“If Congress can force me to buy health insurance, can it also force me to eat broccoli?”…

That question, according to WallachBeth Capital’s Chris Hempstead, is one that he can’t answer, but Hempstead does have a sharp-as-a-scalpel perspective re: the ETFs to put under a microscope as the US Supreme Court is scheduled to perform surgery on President Obama’s healthcare initiative:

IHF: IShares DJ US Healthcare Providers (77% Healthcare Services and 17% Pharma)

Year to date the IHF fund is +11.6% and since Obamacare passed +24% versus SPX of 12.6% and 20% respectively.

PTH: PowerShares Dynamic Healthcare Sector (25% Pharma, 25% Healthcare Products, 24% Healthcare Services and 14% Biotech)

YTD the PTH fund is +12.6% (SPX 12.6%) and since Obamacare +28% (SPX 20%).

FXH: First Trust Health Care AlphaDEX (30% Pharma, 30% Healthcare Services, 24% Healthcare Products and 12% Biotech)

YTD the FXH fund is +13% (SPX 12.6%) and since Obamacare +29% (SPX 20%).

YTD  XLV is +7.9% (SPX 12.6%) and since Obamacare +16% (SPX 20%).  XLV has an expense ratio of .18%.

 

Expert ETF Trader: Liquidity Is There; Just Look Beyond the Screens

Other than the ETF market “go-go names”, one of the more commonly-voiced, and according to many, often-misguided observations regarding most ETFs is  “won’t trade it, there’s no liquidity in that name,”  or “the screens are only showing 1000 shares offered and I have to pay up 50 cents to buy a lousy 25,000 shares?!”

As a consequence, any half-smart portfolio manager often quickly (if not wrongly) concludes that the “lack of liquidity cost” is a deterrent to their positioning what is otherwise a very compelling “basket” of underlying securities.

The editors here don’t buy into the lack of liquidity notion, and after getting our hands on desk notes published today by Chris Hempstead, Head ETF Trader for WallachBeth Capital (one of the more prominent players in the ETF space), we couldn’t resist the opportunity to re-publish.

But wait, there’s more!