Thinking through volatility in ETFs and financial markets

Danesh Rohinton's picture

Global markets were jolted Monday morning with elevated volatility as a group of ETFs fell intraday between 25% to over 40% within minutes of the market opening, which triggered a broader correction. In short order, well known blue chip firms such as GE, Pepsi, Visa and Starbucks briefly fell over 15% before recovering. It’s worth highlighting that the seeds of this volatility were sown years ago with the growth of ETFs in the market and the risks they pose to their investors.

On Monday as volatility picked up, the ETF traders significantly raised their fees (wide bid-ask spreads), some even halted trading altogether. This meant either no bids for investors looking to sell ETFs (no liquidity) or a very low bid (significant capital loss) if there was a buyer. Owners of popular ETFs were put in a very difficult position of being unable to sell or take a loss on their investment of between 25-40% in less than 30 minutes. This is a problem unique to the ETF structure and represents one of the risks investors are taking on when owning ETFs, even the "liquid" ones.


Source: Jonestrading (as of Aug. 24, 2015)

Ever since the financial crisis, the industry has seen a significant shift away from mutual funds into ETFs. Since 2011, U.S. mutual funds have seen redemptions of just over $143 billion while U.S. ETFs have attracted inflows of $251 billion. These passive strategies, with a preset formula for trading, have played an increasing role in the financial markets by buying and selling en-masse a basket of securities without any regard for the significant differences in quality or valuation of the underlying businesses. It’s also no coincidence that ETF activity represented 30% of trading volume in the market on Monday, the largest day on record since data has been collected.


Source: RBC Capital Markets

As a consequence of the new regulatory requirements, the traditional investment banks have a limited capacity to act as a buffer during periods of market volatility in both equity and fixed-income markets. Overall the total balance sheet for dealers has shrunk around 80% post-crisis leaving traditional market makers in position where they are either unwilling or unable to step in to correct irrational prices. This magnifies the volatility and increases the level of illiquidity in the market during periods of uncertainty.

During these times we aim to take advantage of irrational selling in the market often driven by passive strategies forced to liquidate based on a rigid formula. We remain focused on absolute returns and building positions in quality companies at attractive prices (driven by market dislocations) as important steps in the process.

Comments

Submitted by Rob on

Good commentary. Technical but effective. People have blindly looked to EFTs primarily thinking it will reduce costs. Learning about the downsides (disadvantages & hidden costs) of EFTs is important for all of us to really understand the product.

Submitted by Rob on

I have large assets with CI and some ETFs but your analysis seems biased to favour Cambridge products. Here is why:

1. Arbitrage - If an ETF is off, its NAV intraday, arbitrageurs will bring valuations back in line fairy quickly and certainly by day's end (if you believe in capitalism.)

2. Halted stocks and ETFs - Don't forget mutual funds are effectively halted all day everyday. I cannot enter or exit a position until the day's end. Your product is still inferior.

3. Volatility - Vol is created by those who hold the most assets. The mutual fund industry dwarfs the ETF business by assets. Mutual funds will always need to share more of the blame until the assets tilt the other way.

4. Intraday values - I wish the intraday values on your mutual funds were posted to show how bad the fund got during the worst part of the day. Your funds hold the same stocks you mention and therefore the intraday value of your funds will reflect similar downside.

Danesh Rohinton's picture
Submitted by Danesh Rohinton on

Rob, thanks for your interest and support.

On Monday the arbitragers who provide liquidity (through derivatives in some situations) shut down as volatility picked up. This meant investors had a difficult time selling their "liquid" ETF. The remaining arbitragers who still offered liquidity increased their pricing significantly (bid-ask spreads expanded) so they actually expanded the discount on NAV by design at the expense of ETF owners. This explains how the S&P 500 fell 6% intraday at its peak but ETFs promising liquid S&P 500 exposure fell over 20% at that same time.

During those intraday lows over $300 million in trading took place in those ETFs I highlighted. This was a permanent and significant loss for the investors who sold at a material discount to the stocks they thought they owned. As a Cambridge unitholder you own a specific stock directly along with active management of our holdings and cash. This helped protect our funds against the significant volatility on Monday and provided us with an opportunity to deploy cash during the market dislocation.

Best,
Dan

Add new comment

We welcome your comments and questions for the Cambridge team and will respond as soon as possible. Please note that all comments are reviewed for their relevance to the topics discussed in the blog, and that comments may be edited.