Search results

The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief review of three strands of the literature on exchange‐traded funds.

The paper starts with a review of the history of the growth of exchange‐traded funds and their characteristics. The paper then examines the key factors and findings of the existing studies on, respectively, the pricing efficiency, the tracking ability/performance, and the impact on underlying securities of exchange‐traded funds.

Although there has been a substantial amount of research conducted to advance our knowledge on the trading, management, and effect of exchange‐traded funds, the findings are still far from conclusive in addressing a number of research questions.

Investors and other market participants will find this review informative in enhancing the understanding of exchange‐traded funds.

By highlighting the general theme of the related research findings, the paper provides a systematic review of the existing literature that future researchers can utilize in developing their research agenda.

The paper aims to determine if a country's Economic Freedom Index value has any relationship to the return of the related country specific exchange traded fund.

A total of 36 country specific exchange traded funds were selected for use in this study. The historical returns for 2011, the three‐year period ending in 2011, and the five‐year period ending in 2011 were recorded if available for each exchange traded fund. Each exchange traded fund (ETF) was placed into one of four groups based upon its country's overall Economic Freedom Index value. The range of Economic Index values for each group was the same ones used by the publishers of the Economic Freedom Index. The mean ETF return and standard deviation for 2011, three‐year, and five‐year periods were calculated for each of the four groups. The mean/standard deviation of the Economic Freedom Index and each of its components for 2011, the mean of the three‐year period, and the mean of the five‐year period were calculated for each of the four groups. The degree of statistical significance between the mean returns of the four groups was determined by using ANOVA. The correlation coefficients and the degree of statistical significance were calculated between each component of the index, between each component and the overall index value, and between the overall index value and the ETF returns.

The correlations between the components of the Economic Freedom Index generally tend to be positive and statistically significant. The correlations between the components of the Economic Freedom Index and the Economic Freedom Index tend to be positive and statistically significant. The correlation between the mean ETF returns of the various groups and the value of the mean Economic Freedom Index tends to be mixed. There appears to be no statistical significance of the difference between the mean ETF returns of each group and the mean overall score of the Economic Freedom Index for that group. For the year 2011 the level of significance was 0.103, for the three‐year period the level of significance was 0.541, and for the five‐year period the level of significance was 0.132. The differences within each group are more than the differences between the groups. The value of the Economic Freedom Index does not appear to correlate with the return of the country specific exchange traded fund.

The paper relates a country's environment for conducting business as represented by its Economic Freedom Index to the equity returns of firms in that country. The results of this study would be of interest to those individuals or institutions making investment decisions regarding country specific exchange traded funds. If a positive correlation exists between the index value and the return of the exchange traded fund, this information could improve the prediction of country specific exchange traded fund returns.

The purpose of this paper is to examine operating characteristics, risk and performance measures of all available vehicles for index investing in US bond funds during the 15‐year period from April, 1994 to March, 2009. The results shed light on the important issue of bond index mutual funds (BIMFs) and bond exchange‐traded funds (BETFs) performance compared with average of all bond mutual funds.

Data were obtained from Morningstar Principia. Operating characteristics include expense ratios, annual turnover rates, and tax cost ratios. Performance measures include average annual returns and return percentile rank in category, risks (measured by standard deviation) and risk‐adjusted returns (measured by the Sharpe ratio).

BIMFs and BETFs have significantly lower expense ratios and annual turnover rates than category averages. Their returns and risk‐adjusted returns are significantly higher than bond category averages.

Future studies will be able to benefit from a larger sample size, longer performance records, and the strength of bond index funds in foreign markets.

Both BIMFs and bond exchange‐traded mutual funds have significantly lower expense and annual turnover rates, making them preferred investment choices.

Efforts by active bond mutual fund managers to beat index benchmarks have largely failed. Investors should be wary of bond mutual fund managers touting their ability to beat the average or a bond index.

The advantage of investment in BIMFs and BETFs is clear.

The purpose of this paper is to consider the implicit effect of the underlying foreign currency exposure on the performance characteristics of country exchange traded funds.

To arrive at an overall estimation of the exchange-traded fund (ETF)’s tracking error, the mean of the three measures of tracking error was calculated for both the hedged (r_LC) and unhedged (r_NAV) return series. Since tracking error does not capture all the risk inherent in a country index fund, the study extends the analysis using the Sortino and Modified Sharpe ratios.

The decision to hedge currency risk should not be taken on the sole basis of historical volatilities. The investor must also factor in transactions costs, the possible roll of futures contracts and prevailing interest rate differentials. If the rate on the foreign currency is greater than the dollar (euro) rate, the investor will pay for the hedge. If the rate on the foreign currency is less than the dollar (euro) rate, the investor will gain on the trade. Given that hedging entails additional costs, in cases where the neutralization of currency volatility only reduces risk modestly, it would be advisable to leave the exchange rate risk unhedged. We propose two metrics for ETF investors deciding whether to hedge a country ETF’s underlying currency risk.

The results highlight a key finding: while the majority of country funds accurately track the performance of the underlying foreign index when measured in the local currency, returns in the fund currency can be much more volatile. In breaking down the sources of country fund volatility, the paper demonstrates the impact of the underlying currency movements on overall fund risk. In cases where the currency impact has a significant impact on fund tracking errors, an index-oriented investor benefits from neutralizing the exchange rate effect. Additionally, as the Sortino and Modified Sharpe measures suggest that the underlying currency exposure offers in most cases a better risk-adjusted return for country exchange-traded funds (ETFs) in the listing currency, we also calculate the risk minimizing foreign currency exposure for each fund and propose a decision rule based on the net currency variance to decide whether to hedge the ETF’s currency risk. The optimal hedge ratio indicates that US-based investors should only partially hedge the underlying currency risk while European-based investors are better off fully hedging currency risk.

Fair value pricing is a critical issue for mutual funds with international market exposure because trading in the underlying foreign securities is not synchronous with US market trading. Using a sample of Japanese open‐end mutual funds that trade in the USA, this paper explores the potential for exploitation of common mutual fund pricing practices and identifies much larger pricing errors than previously reported. A simple, objective solution to the fair value pricing quandary is proposed. The solution, based on foreign exchange‐traded funds and the S&P 500, provides a timely, objective pricing alternative that is less exploitable than current mutual fund pricing practices.

To discuss how product innovations in exchange‐traded funds (ETFs) have blurred the line between passive and active management, and to explore the legal ramifications of these developments.

Describes how ETFs operate and how the ETF marketplace has grown; discusses the use of broad‐based indexes for most ETFs until recently; describes newer ETFs that provide targeted exposure to narrow market segments; and discusses underlying indexes that are based on performance‐based characteristics rather than market segments, along with possible difficulties in making performance‐based criteria widely available to investors.

Historically the SEC has expressed skepticism over actively managed ETFs because of uncertainty as to whether they can provide the same portfolio transparency and arbitrage opportunity that traditional ETFs can. As “Rule Sets,” or criteria for including companies in performance indexes, become more involved and less objective, the challenge will be to ensure that sufficient arbitrage opportunities exist to ensure pricing efficiency. If that challenge can be met, it may serve as a model for a truly actively managed ETF.

Explains how the new generation of ETFs is coming closer to the line of active management and the legal issues that must be surmounted before truly actively managed ETFs are offered.

The purpose of this paper is to study if actively managed exchange-traded funds (AMETFs) and actively managed mutual funds (AMMFs) are complements or substitutes. It also tests if there are tax or liquidity clientele effects.

The study investigates the relation between individual AMMF flows and aggregate AMETF flows as well as individual AMETF flows and aggregate AMMF flows. A 2013 tax change is used to analyze if a tax clientele effect exists between the AMETF and AMMF markets. The authors use differences in investor groups for institutional vs retail fund share classes to test for liquidity clientele effects.

The authors find that equity and mixed AMETFs and AMMFs are substitutes, although not perfect substitutes. Taxation-related differences between the two products create a clientele effect for fixed income and mixed funds where tax-sensitive investors are more likely to substitute AMETFs for AMMFs surrounding tax increases. There is weak evidence that institutional investors may prefer AMETFs more than retail investors because of their enhanced liquidity.

This is the first study to investigate the flow relation between AMETFs and AMMFs. The fast-paced growth of the AMETF area coupled with the substitutability between the two products and tax advantages of AMETFs has the capability to gain significant market share from AMMFs in the future.

To discuss a September 22, 2015 Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) proposal for a set of broad and sweeping rules mandating that open-end mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) develop and implement formalized and written liquidity risk management programs (“LRMPs”).

Describes the purpose of an LRMP, the six “liquidity buckets,” the nine factors that must be considered in determining an instrument’s liquidity, the need to continuously monitor the liquidity of each position, the set of eight mandated factors used to assess a fund’s liquidity risk, the requirement for a fund to define a three-day liquid asset minimum, the role of the fund’s board of directors, a separate rule permitting “swing pricing” to adjust net asset value to take into account the costs of unexpected redemptions or cash infusions, disclosure requirements, and proposed compliance dates.

In proposing this new program, the SEC stated that its goal was to enhance effective liquidity risk management practices by funds and thereby reduce the risk that funds will be unable to meet redemptions under reasonably foreseeable stressed market conditions.

Expert guidance by experienced financial services lawyers.

The aim of this study is to examine the tracking performance and tracking error (TE) of New Zealand exchange traded fsunds (ETFs).

The authors use regression methods and cointegration analysis to examine tracking performance. Multivariate regressions are used to examine the determinants of TE.

At the daily frequency, the authors observe that the ETFs have substantially different exposures to their underlying indexes from what they should be, which is confirmed by cointegration analysis. At the monthly frequency, tracking performance improves but still shows significant differences between the ETF and its underlying index. When the authors examine the TEs of the ETFs, the authors observe that these are substantial and that there is considerable variation in TE. Regression analysis shows that both characteristics of the ETF and the constituents of the index the ETF tracks, as well as the volatility of the underlying benchmark are determinants of the TE of the ETFs.

This is the first study to examine New Zealand-based ETFs. The findings contribute to understanding the performance of these ETFs and are of relevance to academics, investors and the ETF provider.

For a number of reasons ranging from their more recent introduction to their perceived lesser excitement relative to stock-based peers, there have been few studies of fixed income (mainly bond) exchange-traded funds (ETFs). The purpose of this paper is to fill the void by comparing performance measures of fixed income ETFs to fixed income closed-end funds (CEFs).

This paper examines operating characteristics as well as risk and performance measures of all available fixed income ETFs and CEFs in the USA over the last five and ten years ending on December 31, 2014. Operating characteristics include expense ratios, annual turnover rates, tax cost ratios, and tracking error ratios. Performance measures include average annual returns, risks (measured by standard deviations), and risk-adjusted returns (measured by Sharpe ratios and Sortino ratios).

This study finds material and significant difference in a variety of expenses, return measures, and risk measures. Sharpe and Sortino ratio significance is highly dependent on whether net asset values or market values serve as the dependent variable. ETFs would be the preferred choice of fixed income investors who are presumed to be focussing on market-based return measures.

This paper empirically compares operating characteristics as well as risk and performance measures of US fixed income ETFs and fixed income CEFs in the same Morningstar categories over the last five and ten years.