Are Actively Managed ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds) Worth a Look?

Investors are divided into two groups: those that see themselves as investors and those that use their 401(k) accounts to invest for their retirement. The latter group tends to refer to this activity as savings, a word that has long since distressed me for its inaccuracy. The other group, the ones who think they can invest, tend to fall prey to the next new thing or on the flip side, spend a great deal of time and money trying to mimic an index fund. This group wants to be their own mutual fund manager and does everything but charge the trailing fees that a mutual fund does.



So we have one group who "invests" and the other who "save".Both use essentially the same tools and with any luck, practice the same prudent practices. Tempting both groups is the ETF or exchange traded fund. When these we first introduced, about a $1 trillion worth of investments ago, they were heralded as the one thing investors needed to keep their assets where they could get to them, when they needed them.

Trading like stocks, you could buy an ETF in the morning, sell it if you wanted to at noon, and buy it back before the end of the day. This was a genius move on the part of Wall Street and began generating buckets of cash via trades. Mutual fund companies wanted a piece of the action and jumped in as well with ETFs that looked eerily similar to index funds they were already selling.

The cost of the trade was about the only thing you could toy with. So they eliminated that fee. But not to be allowing you to do something for free, they found another way to charge you. Back on January 6th, 2011, I wrote: "a Vanguard spokesman said the company believed “that the ability to attract and retain clients, particularly high-net-worth clients, will improve the bottom line and ultimately result in lower fund expense ratios.” The truth is that instead of charging for the trade, they charge you to hold the ETF in your account."


Now, three years into the first appearance of the actively managed ETF, we wonder if this will be as wildly popular as the indexed ETF (which has sliced and diced the market in such a way that no corner of the investment world is un-indexed and because of that, has added to the volatility in the marketplace, particularly at the close of trading). Perhaps but the wary investor and more than one "saver" should approach these tools with caution.

Does an actively managed ETF cost less than a actively managed mutual fund? The short answer is yes. Mutual funds bought outside of your 401(k) - where fees tend be lower and in some cases, different - have fees for distributions and marketing. While these fees are annoying and do take away from your returns, they are needed to attract new investors, pay for research into which stock is next on the buy or sell list and to pay for the services of the fund manager. Could they be lower? Yes. Have they dropped significantly? Over the last several years, yes. But what about their ETF counterpart?

Without many of those "trailing fees", actively managed ETFs are less expensive. But few people add in the cost of the trade when they think of purchasing an ETF and each time you buy or sell, this acts as a fee - albeit right up front.


Several other comparisons come to mind. The transparency of ETFs, which must disclose what they hold everyday seems on the surface like it would be a grand idea. But when it comes to this type of investment, transparency and rules for trading tend to make this a dangerous place. In an index fund or ETF, the investments mimic an index, set and left alone for a year, sometimes longer.

In an actively managed ETF, which discloses its holdings and must disclose its building or restructured portfolio almost as it executes the trade, it allows investors outside of the ETF to "front-run" the fund and buy at a cheaper price than the fund would pay. This is not good for the ETF manager if the stock they are buying is somewhat illiquid.


Taxes are another issue. Mutual funds tax you quarterly and yearly. Index ETFs tax you only when you trade them and because they don't turnover (trade their securities often) as much, the taxes, once levied are less. Actively managed ETFs only charge you taxes when you sell the fund but, because they trade often, the taxes you will pay will be higher than indexed ETFs.

Now there is little I can say that will dissuade you from buying an actively managed ETF once they become more widely available and have logged a track record (currently, they have less than three years under their belts). If you find them in your 401(k) and they are cheaper than actively managed mutual funds, they might be worth looking at if you are looking at adding some risk.


This investor tool is not going away. And it will add to some additional volatility as traders in these funds move around much more than those that hold individual stocks and/or mutual funds. And that can't be good no matter how you view who you are: and "investor" or a "saver".

The Deep End of a Dark Pool

There was some speculation that the financial markets in this country would suddenly stagnate after the most recent downturn. The innovation of products that used an ever-increasing and more complicated methodology to make money would stop, paving the way for dull and boring, over-regulated markets that offered so much oversight as to slow the growth of the country. To hear some Wall Streeters talk, the end of an era was upon us.

Not so fast.
Financial markets and those that look for ever smaller ways to extract a decimal from these tough times have rediscovered a product called dark pools. These are ways to trade electronically using the money from a bank, doing so without publicizing the trade until well after it had been executed and even more sinister, allowing traders to see in advance what orders are being placed.

In other words, while we rely on live quotes, these dark pool traders are able to purchase an equity without needing to publicize what the actual quote was. These types of pools have been around for over a decade but were largely underused. There were simply too many other tools of the trade to be utilized while the Bush administration's crippled S.E.C. looked the other way. As long as the market escalated, there was little or no need to decimalize each trade.

But that has changed and the numbers of large and institutional traders that now tap this type of trading platform has increased at a frightening rate of 17% over the last year (from 58% to 70%). While you may say to yourself, what mutual funds, pension funds and hedge funds do to enhance their return is okay by you, some of which you may have an interconnected interest in, the idea that the equity markets may not be fair to all players is not right.

Individual investors have known of these disparities for some time. Beginning of the day and end of the day volumes and volatility have increased to the point that many people could never predict where the market is going to end the day. (Exchange Traded Funds have been to blame for frenzied trading as well.)

Now this subject of who and how these dark pools are being used seems to be getting a little light shed on it from the new chair of the S.E.C. Mary Shapiro. In a recent keynote address at the 2009 SIFMA Market Structure Conference, James A. Brigagliano Co-Acting Director, Division of Trading and Markets U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission wondered if "there is any compelling reason for dark pools to object to improved post-trade transparency." Acknowledging the need for these trades to be dark prior to execution as part of the success of these pools, he couldn't see why "some form of improved post-trade transparency would be likely to interfere with their business models."

The Downside of Speed.
This darkness is however not complete, coming in different shades. Often called indications of interest, these so-called messages done in advance of the trade itself, offering a look to other traders of a trade about to happen, whether it be executed or canceled may resemble a quote too closely.

Because these trades are able to get done very quickly, these "actionable order messages could create the potential for significant private markets to develop that exclude public investors" according to Brigagliano suggesting that because of this "the public does not have fair access."

Mr. Brigagliano has no real beef with the huge block trades that are conducted between institutional investor, often trading in excess of 50,000 shares. But smaller order systems could make the general investing public less likely to want to trade if they feel as though some select individuals get orders processed at a better price based on a quote the general public was unable to see. If that were to happen, the markets would essentially freeze.

He is correct in assuming that "any practice that significantly detracts from the incentives to display liquidity in the public markets could decrease that liquidity and, in turn, harm price discovery and worsen short-term volatility."

At the heart of this reform is a newly energized SEC. So far, they are looking at regulation with a realization that too much regulation would have long-range effects that we would have to live with for years to come and the lack of regulation they inherited needs revamping. Cleaning up the dark pools is one of the ways they hope to do this. Expect Wall Street to resist.

Any transparency is better than none and Ms. Shapiro is making this a focus of her approach to getting the investor’s trust in the US equity markets back on track. The "gaps" in regulation have allowed too many innovators to slip through with products that might make money for some, but threaten the long-term goals of some investors and challenging the trust of others.