The Active ETF space in the US over the past month ramped up and garnered a significant amount of assets, but again the growth was driven primarily by just a few names. August also saw the number of new filings for actively-managed ETFs slow down, with fewer new players announcing plans. However, considering that there are currently 25 different issuers with plans for actively-managed ETFs which are backlogged with the SEC, one would have to say that the bottleneck definitely lies at the SEC. This was confirmed in an interview with Patrick Daugherty, who spoke of “Paralysis at the SEC”. We did see more conversion plans announced though, this time with Claymore announcing plans to convert two passively-managed bond ETFs into actively-managed ETFs. We also started to address the basics with regards to actively-managed ETFs to help new investors with our Active ETF Basics series. August also marked the closure of two Active ETFs from Grail Advisors and RiverPark, which are the first actively-managed ETFs to shut down since Bear Stearns’ very first Active ETF went down with the company in 2008.

Fund Flows:

(Click table to enlarge)

The US Active ETF space saw its assets grow by more than $400 million, but the growth was concentrated in a few names and majority of the funds in the space continued to be overlooked by investors. All in all, the total asset base reached $2.2 billion at the end of August, still below the May high. As has become the norm, PIMCO’s Enhance Short Maturity Fund (MINT: 100.76 0.00%) served as a barometer for market sentiment, being directly related to investor fears. As the market fell back in August, investors looked to take risk off the table and go into cash. And in doing so, they helped MINT bolster its asset base up to $517 million, still nowhere close to the $770 million high from May, but an significant rise from the $333 million the fund had at the end of July.

However, the biggest magnet for assets in the Active ETF space, was WisdomTree’s just launched actively-managed ETF – the WisdomTree Emerging Markets Local Debt Fund (ELD: 50.99 +0.33%). In the span of 3 weeks, the fund was able to attract close to $200 million in assets, remarkable considering how most other funds performed over the period. Clearly, WisdomTree has been able to gain quite a lot of interest and traction from investors for to its emerging markets fixed-income strategy. Whether that’s a result of superior marketing capabilities or a simple case of finding the right investor need and catering to it, is anyone’s guess. But most other Active ETF issuers could take a lesson or two from WisdomTree as another fund, the Dreyfus Brazilian Real Fund (BZF: 28.09 +0.11%) was also able to increase its asset base $62 million to $220 million. WisdomTree’s largest fund remains the Chinese Yuan Fund (CYB: 24.88 +0.12%), which stood at $585 million and in fact lost some money in August.

(Click table to enlarge)

In Canada, the Active ETF scene remained largely stagnant, with the exception of AlphaPro’s latest new launch – the Horizons AlphaPro Corporate Bond Fund (HAB) – which built on its successful launch by gathering $10 million more in assets. That brought the total assets within actively-managed ETFs in Canada to $340 million.

Head to our Active ETFs Database for a more dynamic listing of all Active ETFs.

New Entrants, Filings and Closures:

1. Huntington files for strategy using options – direct link

2. Claymore files to convert 2 passive ETFs into Active ETFs – direct link

3. U.S. One expands its exemptive relief and plans new Active ETF – direct link

4. Grail Advisors shuts down two of its funds – direct link

5. Van Eck removes derivatives from Active ETF plans – direct link
 
Disclosure: No positions in above-mentioned names.

If you haven’t already subscribed to ActiveETFs | InFocus, do it here via Email or via RSS feed!
 
Disclaimer: Views and opinions expressed on EtfsHub are those of the author alone and do not in any way represent the official views, positions or opinions of the employers – both past or present – of the author in question, or any other institutions and corporations associated with the author. Neither the information nor any opinions contained or expressed above and elsewhere on EtfsHub constitutes or should be construed as a solicitation or offer by EtfsHub to buy or sell any securities or other financial instruments or to provide any investment advice or recommendations. EtfsHub shall not be liable for any claims or losses of any nature, arising indirectly or directly from use of the information on or accessed through the site. Please see full disclaimers here.

The investment mandate for the fund has not changed, and the Ultra Short Duration ETF will look to achieve maximum current income and preservation of capital by investing in short-term, investment grade fixed-income securities. Reflecting the short-term nature of the fund, the average duration of the portfolio is expected to be less than 1 year. The fund will be sub-advised by Western Asset Management Company, which is a California-based firm associated with Legg Mason Asset Management, that manages more than $478 billion in assets. Western Asset focuses its management expertise entirely on the fixed-income market. For the fund, Western Asset will employ an active, team-managed strategy and utilizes a top-down economic and interest rate outlook, combined with a bottom-up security selection process. The portfolio will be managed by a team of 4 managers who will be allowed to invest in debt issued by governments of Western Europe, Australia, Japan and Canada, aside from investing in US government and agency debt. However, all investments will be restricted to US$-denominated securities.

The Ultra Short Duration ETF will charge total expenses of 0.30%, which consist of 0.23% in management fee that goes to Western Asset. The total operating expenses are 0.42%, but an expense reduction has been put in place till August 31, 2011 to cap expenses at 0.30% for the first year of the fund. That fee structure will put in direct competition with PIMCO’s Enhanced Short Maturity Fund (MINT: 100.76 0.00%) that has seen a lot of success since launch. MINT has an expense ratio of 0.35%, so clearly the pricing for this new fund was decided upon with an eye upon the competition.

The prospectus also details the performance of a “Western Asset Enhanced Liquidity Composite” that represents performance for funds that are substantially similar to the planned Ultra Short Duration ETF. Since inception in Jan 1994, the composite has returned 4.18% compared to the benchmark’s 3.99%. This marks a marginal outperformance of 0.19%. The benchmark is a blended index consisting of a two-third weighting in the Citigroup 3 Month T-bill and one-third in the Barclays Capital U.S. Government Bond Index 1-3 Years. However, the composite underperformed this benchmark by about 40 basis points during the last 1 year and 3 year periods.

If this actively-managed ETF does end up gaining some traction, then it will become another money-market alternative that they can turn to for putting away their cash, aside from PIMCO’s MINT. Other firms like Eaton Vance have also filed to launch actively-managed ETFs which target the short duration segment of the bond market.
 
Disclosure: No positions in above-mentioned names.

If you haven’t already subscribed to ActiveETFs | InFocus, do it here via Email or via RSS feed!
 
Disclaimer: Views and opinions expressed on EtfsHub are those of the author alone and do not in any way represent the official views, positions or opinions of the employers – both past or present – of the author in question, or any other institutions and corporations associated with the author. Neither the information nor any opinions contained or expressed above and elsewhere on EtfsHub constitutes or should be construed as a solicitation or offer by EtfsHub to buy or sell any securities or other financial instruments or to provide any investment advice or recommendations. None of the material above and elsewhere on EtfsHub is intended to endorse or promote any company or its products. EtfsHub shall not be liable for any claims or losses of any nature, arising indirectly or directly from use of the information on or accessed through the site. Please see full disclaimers here.

The Short Term Municipal Bond Fund has gradually gained some traction with investors over the months, with its asset based increasing from just $8 million back in March, to about $13 million at the end of May, ramping up to the $18 million mark at the end of July. The fund should attract investors in higher tax brackets who are looking for tax-exempt sources of return. The municipal bond market though is by no means a sure bet, with many issuers and municipalities under severe budgetary pressures which can affect their ability to fulfill their obligations significantly. As such, SMMU provides investors who are looking for exposure to the municipal bond market, with access to PIMCO’s established management expertise in the fixed-income space. Unlike index funds which rely solely on rating agencies for credit analysis, the fund utilizes issuer-specific credit analysis from PIMCO. The fund charges investors an expense ratio of 0.35%, which is much lower than comparable mutual fund offerings.

Investment Mandate

The Short Term Municipal Bond Fund seeks attractive tax-exempt income while preserving capital by investing at least 80% of its assets into municipal bonds whose interest payments are exempt from federal income tax. The fund invests only in securities that are not subject to the federal alternative minimum tax (ie. AMT-free securities). The duration of the portfolio is expected to be less than 3 years and consist primarily of short duration, high quality bonds. The fund managers also do not utilize any derivatives to implement the investment strategies. The portfolio managers also look to manage capital gains and losses in order to minimize taxes on capital gains and harvesting losses.

Portfolio Composition

SMMU consisted of 69 individual securities as of August 28^th, whose average effective maturity was about 2.5 years. 71% of the fund was invested in securities with maturities between 1 and 3 years, with none of the securities exceeding 10 years in maturity. The fund’s composition does not differ much from its benchmark, the Barclays Capital 1-3 Year Municipal Bond Index. In terms of maturity buckets, where the index does not hold any securities exceeding 5 years in maturity, SMMU invested 5% of the funds in the 5-10 year maturity bucket. As a result, the average maturity of the fund is slightly higher that of the index.

Performance

Given that the fund has only been in existence for about 7 months, it would be unfair to judge the active manager’s performance on that time period. However, looking at the numbers can shed light on the fund’s track record so far. Since inception, SMMU has returned 1.40% till the end of July while the fund’s benchmark, the Barclays Capital 1-3 Year Municipal Bond Index, has returned 1.60% over the same period. That implies an underperformance of 0.20%. The returns of the fund after taxes would have been even lower, standing at 1.18%. The chart below compares the fund’s price performance to that of two comparable index ETFs – the iShares S&P Short-Term National AMT-Free Municipal Bond (SUB) and the SPDR Nuveen Barclays Capital Short-Term Municipal Bond (SHM):

The fund performed quite well in July, as the municipal bond market gained from an increase in investor’s risk appetite. With many states, such as California and New York, and municipalities failing to balance their budgets, credit selection remained important – as pointed out by PIMCO’s monthly commentaries. However, because supply and new issues in the municipal bond market have been limited, money is continuing to flow into this segment of the fixed-income market.

Premium/Discount History

Looking at the premium/discount history for Q2 2010, SMMU has a relatively clean record and has been able to keep the disparity between the ETF price and the fund’s NAV in a tight band. The fund was able to keep the premium/discount to within +/- 50bps on each of the 63 trading days in the quarter, though more time was spent by the fund trading at a discount than at a premium. That should give investors some confidence that they are not trading very far off the fund’s true value when investing or selling SMMU.
 
Disclosure: No positions in above-mentioned names.

If you haven’t already subscribed to ActiveETFs | InFocus, do it here via Email or via RSS feed!
 
Disclaimer: Views and opinions expressed on EtfsHub are those of the author alone and do not in any way represent the official views, positions or opinions of the employers – both past or present – of the author in question, or any other institutions and corporations associated with the author. Neither the information nor any opinions contained or expressed above and elsewhere on EtfsHub constitutes or should be construed as a solicitation or offer by EtfsHub to buy or sell any securities or other financial instruments or to provide any investment advice or recommendations. None of the material above and elsewhere on EtfsHub is intended to endorse or promote any company or its products. EtfsHub shall not be liable for any claims or losses of any nature, arising indirectly or directly from use of the information on or accessed through the site. Please see full disclaimers here.

The original investment mandate for each of the two funds would have allowed them to invest in various derivative instruments such as futures contracts, equity linked derivatives, swaps and options. However, the latest amendment to the application, made on August 27^th removes this flexibility and the funds are no longer expected to utilize derivatives as part of their investment process. This move from Van Eck follows up on similar modifications made by other Active ETF issuers such as AdvisorShares and Legg Mason, who have tried to restrict the usage of derivatives in order to avoid delays and scrutiny associated with the SEC’s on-going investigation of derivative usage in ETFs. The SEC first announced this investigation in March 2010 and very few actively-managed ETFs have been launched on the market since.

Van Eck’s Active Africa ETF is planned to invest primarily in equity securities in Africa while seeking long-term capital appreciation. The fund advisors, Van Eck Advisors, will utilize qualitative and quantitative measures, to select companies for the Active Africa ETF that have growth potential within their market niche. The Active Short Municipal ETF will try to exceed the total return of the Barclays Capital AMT-Free Short Continuous Municipal Index by investing the large majority of its assets in investment-grade municipal securities, whose interest is tax-exempt from federal income tax.
 
Disclosure: No positions in above-mentioned names.

If you haven’t already subscribed to ActiveETFs | InFocus, do it here via Email or via RSS feed!
 
Disclaimer: Views and opinions expressed on EtfsHub are those of the author alone and do not in any way represent the official views, positions or opinions of the employers – both past or present – of the author in question, or any other institutions and corporations associated with the author. Neither the information nor any opinions contained or expressed above and elsewhere on EtfsHub constitutes or should be construed as a solicitation or offer by EtfsHub to buy or sell any securities or other financial instruments or to provide any investment advice or recommendations. None of the material above and elsewhere on EtfsHub is intended to endorse or promote any company or its products. EtfsHub shall not be liable for any claims or losses of any nature, arising indirectly or directly from use of the information on or accessed through the site. Please see full disclaimers here.

This latest reading on the US housing market probably confirms in many people’s minds that the supposed recovery is not going to be as smooth and V-shaped many were hoping for in 2009. With the real estate sector being such a drag on the US economy, it’s hard to see this reflecting anything but poorly on the future prospects of the US real estate market. That’s where the “contrarian” investor in many people would say now would be a good time to make long bets on the US real estate market, after all, how much lower could it go? However, a naive line of thinking precisely like that could bring significant risks along with it. Any investors betting on the real estate sector now would have to pick their bets wisely, and avoid catching onto any falling knives.

Traditionally, investors have chosen to get exposure to the US real estate market through ETFs like the Vanguard REIT ETF (VNQ: 53.37 +1.46%), the largest real estate ETF, which follows the MSCI REIT Index and cover about two-thirds of the entire US REIT market. Another popular alternative is the iShares Dow Jones U.S. Real Estate Index Fund (IYR: 53.9475 +1.31%), which follows the Dow Jones US Real Estate Index, and is the second largest real estate ETF in the US. And investors would generally have been satisfied with the performance of these ETFs so far, with VNQ returning a very solid 53.90% over the last 1 year till July 31^st and IYR returning 49.44% over the same period. However, it would be naive to expect similar performance going forward, especially after the weakness that has been confirmed by today’s data number.

A case can be made for the need for active management in the REITs sector, especially given the minefield that the US real estate sector is likely to represent going forward. Holding a passive can be useful to the extent of providing you with the broadest exposure possible, though as an investor, you would end up holding all the component securities in the index, whether bad or good. In contrast, an active manager would be able to apply some discretion with regards to which securities they choose to hold and would be able to take into account the fundamental quality of the securities.

An actively-managed ETF that provides investors with that possibility is the PowerShares Active U.S. Real Estate ETF (PSR: 44.33 +1.53%). This fund is actively-managed by Invesco PowerShares and invests in securities selected from those included in the FTSE NAREIT Equity REITs Index (FNER). The lead portfolio manager, Joe V. Rodriguez, selects securities by using quantitative and statistical metrics to identify attractively priced securities and manage risk. PSR has total expenses of 0.80%, so investors will definitely be paying a premium over index ETFs, but PSR has shown the performance to justify the expenses. Since fund inception in Nov 2008, PSR has been able to return 53.3% as of June 30, 2010, compared to the FTSE NAREIT Equity REITs Index returning 33.1% while the S&P500 returned 11.8% in that period. A graphical comparison of the PSR fund to the Vanguard REIT Index (VNQ) and the iShares Dow Jones U.S. Real Estate Index Fund (IYR) highlights the outperformance:

 
Disclosure: No positions in above-mentioned names.

If you haven’t already subscribed to ActiveETFs | InFocus, do it here via Email or via RSS feed!
 
Disclaimer: Views and opinions expressed on EtfsHub are those of the author alone and do not in any way represent the official views, positions or opinions of the employers – both past or present – of the author in question, or any other institutions and corporations associated with the author. Neither the information nor any opinions contained or expressed above and elsewhere on EtfsHub constitutes or should be construed as a solicitation or offer by EtfsHub to buy or sell any securities or other financial instruments or to provide any investment advice or recommendations. None of the material above and elsewhere on EtfsHub is intended to endorse or promote any company or its products. EtfsHub shall not be liable for any claims or losses of any nature, arising indirectly or directly from use of the information on or accessed through the site. Please see full disclaimers here.

However, the advantage cited there is that mutual fund investors get the exact NAV of the fund as opposed to ETF investors making the transaction at an “indicative price” that could be at a premium or discount to the actual fund’s NAV. In general, ETF shares will trade at a premium to NAV when demand is high and at a discount to NAV when demand is low. There is a mechanism that exists which is intended to keep the ETF’s price close to NAV. The designated broker to the fund has the ability to arbitrage between ETF price and the fund NAV and creating a profit for themselves. They do this by creating or redeeming ETF shares from the fund company, in exchange for the underlying basket of securities that the broker can buy from or sell to the open market. However, the broker would only do this if the discrepancy between the ETF price and fund NAV is large enough to compensate them for the transaction charge they pay the fund company when creating or redeeming ETF shares. As a result, in every ETF, a small premium or discount to the fund NAV will always exist because the designated broker does not have enough incentive to arbitrage that away. But how small is small?

When looking at actively-managed ETFs specifically, there have been claims made that Active ETFs will tend to have larger premium/discounts to NAV because of greater turnover in the fund and lower interest from market makers and designated brokers etc. We decided to look at exactly how Active ETFs in the US have fared in terms of keeping their ETF prices close to NAV. The table below looks at the number of days in Q2 2010 (63 trading days) that each Active ETF spent trading premiums or discounts of different magnitudes. And the chart below that shows the average distribution across all 26 actively-managed ETFs that traded in Q2 2010. The information is compiled from data disclosed on each fund’s websites. The premium/discount is calculated as the % deviation of the ETF’s mid price on market close from the fund NAV.

From the table, we can see that most equity focused actively-manged ETFs have not had trouble keeping their ETF prices close to NAV, except maybe AdvisorShares Dent Tactical ETF (DENT: 19.52 +0.26%), that has spent more days trading at large premiums or discounts compared to other equity ETFs. On the fixed-income side, Grail’s two bond funds have had a tendency to trade at a discount of bewteen 50-99 bps quite a lot. This doesn’t compare well with PIMCO’s bond ETFs that have what you could call a “perfect score” in this context, as none of their funds traded at premiums or discounts greater than 50 bps in Q2. However, the largest discrepancies are seen from WisdomTree’s currency funds that trade outside of the 50 bps mark with surprising regularity. The most glaring offender would be the Brazilian Real Fund (BZF: 28.09 +0.11%) which spent only 35 trading days trading within the tight 50 bps band, and had 8 days where it traded at a discount greater than 100 bps. Clearly, this is something WisdomTree should be looking at.

On average though, looking at Active ETFs as a whole, 87% of the time the funds traded within the +/- 50 bps range, with very few occurences overall where funds traded at large premiums or discounts in exccess of 2% or 200 bps. This is isn’t much different from most traditional index ETFs. As such, Active ETF investors don’t need to be overly concerned. It is more important to know in which asset classes you are more likely to encounter larger premiums and discounts than normal and keep a look out for those before investing.
 
Disclosure: No positions in above-mentioned names.

If you haven’t already subscribed to ActiveETFs | InFocus, do it here via Email or via RSS feed!
 
Disclaimer: Views and opinions expressed on EtfsHub are those of the author alone and do not in any way represent the official views, positions or opinions of the employers – both past or present – of the author in question, or any other institutions and corporations associated with the author. Neither the information nor any opinions contained or expressed above and elsewhere on EtfsHub constitutes or should be construed as a solicitation or offer by EtfsHub to buy or sell any securities or other financial instruments or to provide any investment advice or recommendations. None of the material above and elsewhere on EtfsHub is intended to endorse or promote any company or its products. EtfsHub shall not be liable for any claims or losses of any nature, arising indirectly or directly from use of the information on or accessed through the site. Please see full disclaimers here.

The closure of these funds makes them the first to be closed in the US Active ETF space, since the very first actively-managed ETF from Bear Stearns went down with the company in 2008. The RP Technology and the RP Financials ETFs were both launched in October 2009, as part of a group of 4 Active ETFs that also included the RP Growth ETF (RPX: 26.01 0.00%) and the RP Focused Large Cap Growth ETF (RWG: 26.855 +1.53%). The two funds that are being closed had seen hardly any in flows since their launch, with both of them languishing around the $2.5 million mark, majority of which is likely the seed capital that the funds started off with in the first place. Both funds had an expense ratio of 0.89% and RFF aimed to outperform the S&P Financials Index, while RPQ aimed to outperform the Nasdaq Composite. RPQ was able outperform its benchmark by a significant margin since inception, but RFF had a harder time and generally stuck quite close to the performance of its benchmark index.

Both funds were sub-advised and managed on a day-to-day basis by RiverPark Advisors, run by CEO and Managing Partner, Morty Schaja. He commented, “By all appearances, the marketplace is not ready for these sector funds. We’ve been pleased with the performance of the RP Technology ETF but flows have still been disappointing. I believe investors will be better served by incorporating the best ideas of these two sector funds into our RP Growth ETF (RPX) offering”. That might imply that RiverPark and Grail Advisors plan to push on with the RP Growth ETF for the while being, even though that fund has not tasted much more success than the two funds being closed. RPX’s assets stood at $3.96 million as of July 31, 2010. The CEO of Grail Advisors, Bill Thomas, also chose to direct attention to future possibilities, saying that, “With this move, we are dedicating our resources to the areas of most interest to investors, including the introduction of several exciting new funds in the coming months that will have broad appeal in the marketplace”.

Many such new funds are not profitable for fund companies until they cross a certain threshold in assets. The threshold to achieve that break-even is seen to be around $30 – $50 million, but for small scale players like Grail Advisors, that threshold is likely on the higher end of the range because they don’t benefit from the scale efficiencies that larger ETF manufactures like Invesco PowerShares have. At the moment, the largest of Grail Advisors’ seven actively-managed ETF is the RP Focused Large Cap Growth ETF (RWG) with assets of only $6.65 million. So it is quite likely that each of Grail’s current offerings are loss-making propositions for the company. RiverPark, the sub-advisor to four of Grail’s ETFs, has filed with the SEC to launch its own actively-managed ETFs as well and has 3 different Active ETFs in the works.
 
Disclosure: No positions in above-mentioned names.

If you haven’t already subscribed to ActiveETFs | InFocus, do it here via Email or via RSS feed!
 
Disclaimer: Views and opinions expressed on EtfsHub are those of the author alone and do not in any way represent the official views, positions or opinions of the employers – both past or present – of the author in question, or any other institutions and corporations associated with the author. Neither the information nor any opinions contained or expressed above and elsewhere on EtfsHub constitutes or should be construed as a solicitation or offer by EtfsHub to buy or sell any securities or other financial instruments or to provide any investment advice or recommendations. None of the material above and elsewhere on EtfsHub is intended to endorse or promote any company or its products. EtfsHub shall not be liable for any claims or losses of any nature, arising indirectly or directly from use of the information on or accessed through the site. Please see full disclaimers here.

Links: Website, Factsheet, Prospectus

Investment Strategy:

AADR is an actively-managed ETF that looks to achieve long-term capital appreciation above international equity benchmarks. The fund will invest in non-US companies that trade on US exchanges through American Depositary Receipts (ADRs). The fund is sub-advised by WCM Investment Management which analyzes major trends in the global economy in order to identify those economic sectors and industries most likely to benefit. The managers look at a time horizon of 3-5 years and believe in portfolio concentration. The portfolio will typically consist of fewer than 30 companies, but will have a minimum of 20 holdings, none of which will exceed more than 25% of the portfolio in weight. AADR’s primary benchmark is the BNY Mellon Classic ADR Index and its secondary benchmark is the MSCI EAFE Index.

Portfolio Managers:

WCM Investment Management is California-based sub-advisor that was established in 1976 and managed $1.4 billion in assets as of Mar 31, 2010. The individuals handling the day-to-day management of the portfolio are as follows:

Paul R. Black, Portfolio Manager – Paul is the President & co-CEO of WCM and has been in the investment business for 26 years. He helps define the firm’s investment strategy and has an active role in the selection of securities.

Kurt R. Winrich, Portfolio Manager – Kurt is the Chairman & co-CEO of WCM and has over 25 years of experience in the investment business. His primary responsibilities include portfolio management and equity research.

Peter J. Hunkel, Portfolio Manager, Business Analyst – Peter joined WCM in 2007 and has been in the investment business for 11 years, with previous experience at Centurion Alliance and Templeton Private Client Group.

Michael B. Trigg, Portfolio Manager, Business Analyst – Michael has 9 years of experience in the investment business and previously worked at Morningstar.

The Numbers:

Expense Ratio – 1.25%, including 0.75% in management fees. Expenses capped below 1.25% till May 6, 2011.

What’s special about it?

1. AADR is the only Active ETF that focuses on providing exposure through ADRs. By virtue of its mandate, AADR will end up having exposure to international mega-caps that are listed in the US like Nestle and Baidu.com, two companies which can be found in the fund’s top 10 holdings.

2. Partnering with BNY Mellon does give the fund a big advantage because BNY Mellon is the world’s largest depository for ADRs and is a leading source for international ADR market intelligence.

3. The fund’s sector and region diversification differs significantly from that composition of its benchmark indices – the BNY Mellon Classic ADR Index and the MSCI EAFE Index, but that’s where the managers hope to add value to the fund.

Analysis:

Positives –

- The managers, WCM Investment Management, have quite a strong track record in managing international portfolios. The prospectus highlights the performance of a “Focused Growth International Composite” that has similar objectives and investment strategies to the fund. The composite outperformed the MSCI EAFE by close to 9%, since inception in Dec, 2004.

Negatives –

- AADR’s expense ratio of 1.25% comes in at the high end of the Active ETF market, and it is only capped at 1.25% till May, 2011. The gross expenses for the fund are actually 1.29%.

- The portfolio concentration could lead to more volatile returns, implying greater upside during good times but also greater downside during bad times.

 
Disclosure: No positions in above-mentioned names.

If you haven’t already subscribed to ActiveETFs | InFocus, do it here via Email or via RSS feed!
 
Disclaimer: Views and opinions expressed on EtfsHub are those of the author alone and do not in any way represent the official views, positions or opinions of the employers – both past or present – of the author in question, or any other institutions and corporations associated with the author. Neither the information nor any opinions contained or expressed above and elsewhere on EtfsHub constitutes or should be construed as a solicitation or offer by EtfsHub to buy or sell any securities or other financial instruments or to provide any investment advice or recommendations. EtfsHub shall not be liable for any claims or losses of any nature, arising indirectly or directly from use of the information on or accessed through the site. Please see full disclaimers here.

While WisdomTree’s currency ETFs have been successful at gathering the lion’s share of assets in the Active ETF space, their actively-managed ETFs are essentially seen by many investors as money-market funds. Active fixed-income ETFs had 23% of assets at the end of July, while equity focused active ETFs had a measly 5% share, even though that category is made up 11 different ETFs. Cumulatively, these active equity ETFs held just in excess of $100million in assets. So what exactly has been behind the success of fixed-income focused actively-managed ETFs relative to equity focused products?

Effectiveness of active management in fixed-income securities

The first idea that can explain the relative difference in success rate is that, traditionally, active management is seen to be more effective within the fixed-income market, as opposed to equities. There are more inefficiencies in the bond market for active managers to exploit than in the stock markets, with liquidity differences being one of the factors that brings about exploitable inefficiencies. As such, fixed-income managers are able to add alpha over their benchmarks more often than not, whereas within equities, active managers have a much harder time outperforming indices. This has been reflected in the success that PIMCO’s 3 actively-managed bond ETFs have seen, with one being a money-market alternative and the other two funds focusing on the municipal bond market. These funds have been relatively more popular because of the access they provide to PIMCO’s active management expertise in the bond market. And have these fund actually been successful at outperforming? Of the 3 funds, only PIMCO’s Enhanced Short Maturity Fund (MINT: 100.76 0.00%) has been able to beat its benchmark, while the other two municipal bond funds have lagged their benchmarks marginally, since inception.

Less impact of daily disclosure requirement in fixed-income than equities

The second big factor is the effect of the daily disclosure that is required by actively-managed ETFs of all holdings. Most active managers, especially equity managers, have been reluctant to meet this stringent requirement because they fear exposing their alpha generating strategies to competitors. In a recent interview with ActiveETFs | InFocus, Patrick Daugherty, who worked behind the scenes on the launch of the first actively-managed bond ETF from Bear Stearns in 2008, shared his thoughts on the effect of the daily disclosure requirement on active managers. He said, “There’s no doubt it discourages some of them because sophisticated and active traders whom I speak to, who have been known to do other things that require capital and human resources, have told me that this is the reason they have not gone into this field”. If any equity manager wants to build up a position and exit a position over several trading days, then that move would be visible to outsiders through the daily disclosure of holdings. As a result traders could potentially monitor the positions being changed and front-run the moves made by the active manager, resulting in sub-par pricing for the fund. The bond market though has a lot more depth compared to equity markets. For example, the municipal bond market comprises of tens of thousands of different issues which means that holdings in different funds can vary extensively. As a result, knowing what bonds a fund holds may be very helpful for an outside trader. Due to this, managers behind and investors in fixed-income funds have been far more comfortable with the disclosure requirements of Active ETFs.

Presence of reputed managers in fixed-income, not in equities

The third and probably most important factor has been the lack of star managers running Active ETFs within the equity space. As most investors would tell you, when it comes to active management, the biggest pull factor is nearly always the reputation of the managers behind the fund and their track record. The fixed-income space has seen several strong and well-reputed managers get behind actively-managed ETFs. One example is, of course, PIMCO which has attracted a lot of assets into its Active ETFs by virtue of its reputation in the bond market, as mentioned earlier. Grail Advisors also recently announced a partnership with DoubleLine, run by the renowned fixed-income manager, Jeffery Gundlach. In the equity landscape though, there has been nothing comparable to attract investors to actively-managed equity ETFs. The industry is still waiting for a Bill Miller, or an equivalent, to get interested in the Active ETF space.
 
Disclosure: No positions in above-mentioned names.

If you haven’t already subscribed to ActiveETFs | InFocus, do it here via Email or via RSS feed!
 
Disclaimer: Views and opinions expressed on EtfsHub are those of the author alone and do not in any way represent the official views, positions or opinions of the employers – both past or present – of the author in question, or any other institutions and corporations associated with the author. Neither the information nor any opinions contained or expressed above and elsewhere on EtfsHub constitutes or should be construed as a solicitation or offer by EtfsHub to buy or sell any securities or other financial instruments or to provide any investment advice or recommendations. None of the material above and elsewhere on EtfsHub is intended to endorse or promote any company or its products. EtfsHub shall not be liable for any claims or losses of any nature, arising indirectly or directly from use of the information on or accessed through the site. Please see full disclaimers here.

According to the filing, the new proposed fund will be a “Global Blend Fund”, a fund defined in the filing as one that can invest in both equity and fixed-income securities that trade in the US or foreign markets. Paul Hrabal, President of U.S. One, said that, “The expanded relief, if granted, will provide our firm with greater flexibility in our ETF portfolios and potentially offer reduced costs to shareholders”. It has been reported previously that U.S. One is planning to launch an actively-managed bond ETF similar to ONEF in terms investment strategy, in that it will also strive for global diversification, low cost and providing wide-ranging exposure that covers the entire fixed-income universe. There was no indication from Hrabal of when the new fund could be launched, and the filing was very light on fund specifics.

The firm’s first and only actively-managed ETF, One Fund (ONEF), was launched in May 2010 and has since increased its assets under management to $4.93 million, at the end of July. ONEF has been targeted at investors looking for a low cost option to gain exposure to a globally diversified equities portfolio that is professionally managed in a single fund. ONEF, a fund-of-funds, held 5 primary ETFs as of Aug 18^th – Vanguard Large Cap ETF (49%), Vanguard Europe Pacific ETF (21%), Vanguard Small Cap ETF (19%), Vanguard Emerging Markets ETF (5%), iShares MSCI EAFE Small Cap Index (5%).
 
Disclosure: No positions in above-mentioned names.

If you haven’t already subscribed to ActiveETFs | InFocus, do it here via Email or via RSS feed!
 
Disclaimer: Views and opinions expressed on EtfsHub are those of the author alone and do not in any way represent the official views, positions or opinions of the employers – both past or present – of the author in question, or any other institutions and corporations associated with the author. Neither the information nor any opinions contained or expressed above and elsewhere on EtfsHub constitutes or should be construed as a solicitation or offer by EtfsHub to buy or sell any securities or other financial instruments or to provide any investment advice or recommendations. None of the material above and elsewhere on EtfsHub is intended to endorse or promote any company or its products. EtfsHub shall not be liable for any claims or losses of any nature, arising indirectly or directly from use of the information on or accessed through the site. Please see full disclaimers here.