Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
When we think about ETFs, we tend to think about large, cheap, passive indexes. After all, those are the biggest ETFs from places like Blackrock, Vanguard, and State Street. But when we look at all the new ETF launches, they tend to not be passive indexes, not be cheap, and not come necessarily from those three big companies. They're active and they are involved in all sorts of different areas that are off the beaten path. To figure out what this means
for your portfolio, let's bring in Dave Nodig. He is the president and director of research at ETF dot Com and a ETF structural expert. Really, since the inception of the entire sector, so Dave, we've seen an explosion in the growth of not just new ETFs, but primarily active ETFs in all sorts of niches. What are you seeing in this space?
Well, you know, for a long time, ETF meant cheap index, right, I mean to go back to Spy and then the first ice shares products, and then even when we started getting into the big expansion of the two thousands, it
was all just index index index. Then we got some smart beta where we tried to be a little bit more clever, and it wasn't really until the late twenty ten cycle where Kathy would at ARC invest launched ARKK and really put herself out there as the portfolio manager in a way that I don't really, frankly remember seeing since the dotcom boom. It's been a long time since we'd had superstar managers on CNBC talking about, you know, pounding the table for a single, and Kathy did that
and obviously had enormous amounts of success. Has had some performance pickups along the way, but that sort of went a little bit dormant during some of the pandemic when
people really discovered trading. What we've seen now is this resurgence, particularly two folks I mentioned Dan Ives why Bush People know him, and Tom Lee from Funstrat with his granny shots at ETF, both of which have pulled in huge money billions of dollars, billions and billions of dollars for the reasons you would expect, because you've got smart people talking on podcasts and TV and on their own air and their own newsletters telling you why they own what's
in the fund. I know that sounds so dumb, but that's why people love superstar managers because they look and they can see Tom Lee on screen, and he can sit there and say, yeah, this is why we like bitcoin. Here, here are the three firms we have in our fund because of it. We might be wrong, we might be right. There's a level of authenticity to that that I think is really a pretty I also think the fact that they've doubled D, S and P this year doesn't hurt.
So to put some flesh on the bones here, Kathy Woods during twenty twenty was a huge tesla and bitcoin bull the fund arc put up giant numbers, triple digit gains. Dan Ives has been an apple and an invidiable pretty much for as long as I can remember. He's been a whole lot more right than wrong. And Tom Lee has been very constructive exactly when it paid to be constructive and stay bullish. All three of those managers have
really big followings. What does the resurgence of brand name active managers mean for the TF space?
Well, I think, first of all, I think it's great for the ETF space because I think the ecotomy that we'd had where people thought of active as being a thing that happened somewhere else and ETFs were only passive wasn't helpful. I think we are moving towards the world where all of your exposures, for the most part, are going to be in an ETF rapper. So by all means we should get active managers as part of this mix.
And now we've got lots of them. You know, we've got a bunch of active funds from Pimco was early. We've got lots in the bond space, you know, everything from Cumberland Advisors to State Street with the Double Line and Jeff Gunlock. Lots of active managers and lots of different areas. I think that's very healthy for the industry.
For the individual investor, it doesn't necessarily make your life easier because as much as I happen to like all the people we have talked about, Dan, tom Lee and Kathy Like personally as people I would have dinner with, the math is not on their sides as an industry. Right, as an industry, we have to point out active managers categorically underperform over time. Doesn't mean they all do, but it means that you've got to be the special person who managed to pick the right active manager at the
right time. That is a tough business. And even active managers running these fund will tell you trying to time when to get in and out of their own funds is going to be tough. So that's the problem, is that active management is tough to evaluate.
Yeah, and to put some numbers there, half of all active managers underperform in any given year. You go out to ten five years, it's eighty percent under form. Ten years it's ninety percent. So it's a tough road to hoe. But let's talk about what makes active ETFs somewhat different than active mutual funds and that data reference. We're all mutual fund data. Mutual funds have to do a regular
filing each quarter about their largest holdings. There has been a lot of back and forth about how transparent active ETFs have to be versus other active funds. What's the state of the art today, what is the regulatory environment?
So there are solutions. If you're an active manager and you don't want to tell everybody what you're doing every day, there are solutions, and there's plenty of funds that have been launched on them. Fidelity has their versions, trou Price has been one of the more successful funds out there. They have a pretty popular blue chip strategy called t chip, which is semi transparent, meaning they're not telling you the
whole portfolio every day. They're telling you once in a while, and they're giving the street just enough information to make a good market not knowing all the information. So it's sort of a clue, a bit of a hack to be semi transparent. This solves a problem for some asset managers. It doesn't solve a single problem for an individual investor, right, So, like I've never heard an individual investor say, golly, I wish I knew less about what I owned.
Right, But let's talk about why it's a problem for fund managers. Fund managers don't buy a stock on a Monday and then they're done. If they say, hey, we like XYZ, they're buying that stock trying to take advantage of draw downs, buying it over days, weeks, even months. So there is a price advantage to the Yes, if the fund manager can be a little less transparent.
Fair description, that's that's that's certainly the argument that the active management industry, who does not want to disclose what they're doing, would give you so you have articulated that side of the argument. Well, my counter to that would be if your strategy requires you buying securities where your action is going to move the market absent disclosure or absent obfuscation, then that strategy probably doesn't belong in an
ETF because you've got bigger problems, right. That means that you're in something small or a liquid or microcap, at which point, already my question would be, how do you plan on running a ten billion dollar ETF with that strategy, because you can't really close an ETF. So if you are a special situations manager, if you're a really sort of obscure niche finding those stocks nobody else knows about, manager,
you do not belong in the ETF. And I'll just flat out and say it at this as simple as that, the mutual fund structure, or even better, a liquidity cap structure like a CEF or old interval fund is actually a better structure for those kinds of investments everybody else. Honestly, there's so much liquidity. I think it's tough to argue that somebody like Tom Lee is being particularly hurt by being transparent. He's double, he's at thirty percent for the year. The SP's at fifteen.
Right, and CEF stands for closed end funds as opposed to ETFs. Yes, so let's talk about some other varieties of active funds that are a little bit out there. We see funds with options, futures, derivatives, inverse leveraged, along with some wild income promises in an ETF rapper tell us about some of those products. Yeah.
The the interesting thing about those is most of them are very mechanical, Right, So if you're running a leverage strategy, you're not making any decisions. Right, I've got Apple, I need two x Apple. I'm going to go to my swap counterparty overnight. They're just going to settle up my two x swap. That's the whole management process. But technically that's going to be an actively managed fund because you
can't just automate that whole process. Somebody still has to make a call about whether or not you're teeing up the swap at this rate or that rate. Same thing with almost anything in the option space. Because the options are constantly changing and constantly repricing and constantly rolling off. It's very difficult to create solid index product around actively or high frequency moving positions in the options market, so for convenience as much as anything. Almost all of those
type products you mentioned are listed as active products. I refer to them as inos like active and name only because they're really There's no Tom Lee saying I really want Apple options today. There's some guy generally j PASTTLI title, sitting on a desk somewhere pushing a button to say, yes, we want those options because the model says we need to roll and that becomes active management. And I mean it is active management. It has higher costs associated with
it for a reason. Some of that is the profit that the issuer wants, but some of it is legitimately you need a trading desk with a bunch of people doing work.
So let's talk about another niche ill liquid alts, things like private equity, private credit, private debt, real estate. Are we going to see those asset classes that really don't trade on their own because they're not public. Are we going to see those in an etf rapper.
We're starting to. We're starting to the canary in the coal mine here with some products from State Street, the big ones priv pr IV for private which has a bunch of Apollo private credit in it generally pretty short maturity stuff two three year kind of things, and fairly straightforward understandable private credit. Intel needs to build a fab in Ireland, they go get a loan, Apollo gives them the loan. You get a slice of it. Nothing super complicated,
nothing super interesting either. I mean it's not you're not getting twenty percent yields out of or anything like that. You're getting some marginal increase in the yield you would get if you were simply investing in, say junk or short term co corporates. So those products are starting to come to market. The concerns I have about them is
they're just going to be untested. We're not going to really know how they're going to perform when the markets go hinky, right, And also what does that even mean, Like if we had a corporate bond blowout and we saw a bunch of triple C stuff start, you know, get you defaulting. I have no idea what the impact on Apollo private credit issued in Ireland to Intel is
going to be when that happens. I also have no idea how they're going to respond if half the fund decides they want out on that Tuesday and now you've got a bunch of liquid stuff which can be up to thirty five percent of the portfolio. That literally the only buyer is Apollo. Technically, they've got answers to all those questions. I'm and I've read all the answers to
those questions, and I'm sort of not gonvinced. But it's one of those things that if you want to be, if you want to be out there on the edge, by all means, go ahead. But I think the private securities in the daily liquid vehicle has not really been through the ring aer yet, so I remain very skeptical.
So let's talk a little bit about crypto and how that's going to impact both investor behavior and portfolio construction. Last year Blackrock, was it last year? This year Blackrock introduced twenty a bit.
Yeah.
Yeah, so it's a year ago coming up on one hundred billion dollars in assets, probably the fastest etf ever to do that. What does this mean and explain the concept of tokenization.
Yeah, So what it means is all of these assets are going to be more and more available to the average joe like us who's just trading in their Schwab account or something. Like that, and because the SEC has said they're going to make it very easy. Very soon, we're going to have every major coin that people know about, a Solana and ave whatever, they'll be a sleeve of that in an ETF that you'll be able to trade.
That's all great. Having those building blocks is awesome also because it will now allow portfolio managers to create portfolios of those individual securities, which right now you can't even do. You can't even buy an index the top ten coins because there isn't a target for the top ten coins
to invest in. So that will be fun when we get that, and I suspect you'll see firms like Bitwise and black Rock, who've got some real bona fides in the crypto management space start bringing pretty institutional active management products there. That's probably a twenty twenty six side. Long term, though, if we want to talk ten years from now, that's when crypto starts becoming an interesting competitor to the ETF space.
I think we will eventually end up in a world where how you move your ownership of Apple around is going to happen, not by going to the New York Stock Exchange and exchanging ledger entries to move around your Schwab account. Instead, you're going to have an actual token. You'll be able to look at the serial number of it.
You'll be able to put it in a wallet and say, oh, no, this is worth one hundred shares of Apple, and that wallet will be able to directly move that security to your wallet without any exchange being part of the process. Most of it will happen like crypto happens now on giant exchanges because price discovery. But just like with bitcoin, I could walk up to you when we could engage in a direct transaction. You're going to start seeing that
with other securities. It's happening more in bonds and real estate. Now to do it in equities is going to require some actual legislation, and we don't make so many laws these days, so that may take some time. Instead, what we'll do is will wrap a lot of stuff. So you'll probably hear about things like wrapped Apple and wrapped Cisco. And what that's going to be is a token that owns the security in some sort of trust pool. That's a baby step, but that's what we'll start hearing first.
So be skeptical when people say we're tokenizing everything because it's going to be a decade.
I had a conversation with Jose Manyana, who is the head of wealth Strategies at Investment Giant BNY Bank of New York, and he was saying, Hey, we went from T plus three to T plus one, meaning it used to take three days to settle a trade. Today it's going to take one day. If we want to get to T plus zero, we have to really have confidence in both sides of the transaction, and theoretically tokenization solves that problem.
It does. Although think about how many big transactions in the world that we could be doing easier we deliberately put brakes on. Think about buying a house wiring right, so there's you know, there's escrow, there's secondary inspection processes, there's separate contracts around just the intention to buy and sell. So the bigger and more interesting a transaction gets, the
less T zero is actually a good right. I Mean, the thing I always say about T zero is did you really want T zero during the flash crash in twenty ten, Like, did you really want no recourse for that that fat fingered billion dollar pennies on the dollar trade? No, you wanted this ecosystem that protects you from a bad actor spoofing something into the system. So we're gonna have a lot to evaluate as a as a as a
market what we actually want. The idea of slowing down markets has actually gotten a lot of traction, like speed bump markets, things like that that are actually pushing against this idea of instantaneous settlement for anything. I don't even want instantaneous settlement for my bank account. I like knowing that I've got somebody I can call when something goes wrong.
Huh. So you've written about volatility and liquidity laundering. Explain what this is and are these really going to be ETFs?
They already are. Man So, volatility laundering is simply moving volatility from one bucket to another and charging something for the privilege of doing that. Right now, you can buy something like MSTY which will give you one hundred percent income return on a micro strategy position through the magic of options, right, and it creates a synthetic long position.
Then it does a synthetic covered call against the synthetic long position, and then it does a whole lot of return of capital to give you your money back and promises you this endless stream of high distributions high percentage distributions. That is volatility laundering because what you were actually doing is you were trying to sell other people the volatility of micro strategy, which is probably not a fantastic idea because the wall of all is high in those cases.
So you're being the person picking up the in this case quarters in front of the steamroll or not the pennies, but you're still exposed to MicroStrategy collapsing and going to nothing. That volatility laundering is what all of these options strategies are really doing.
So really, to wrap this up, the bottom line is bring the same level of common sense and scrutiny to new ETFs that you would to any financial product. Make sure you understand what the product is, how it generates gains, the sort of risks you're incurring, especially with these exotic products,
and the costs. Are these products worth spending seventy five one hundred, one hundred and twenty five bases points more than what you would get for a plain vanilla passive index that seems to be dominating the asset allocation space and the space for ETFs. Be smart, be thoughtful, do your homework. I'm Barry Ridults you've been listening to Bloomberg at the Money