Are you sure you want to change languages?
The page you are visiting uses a different locale than your saved profile. Do you want to change your locale?
Why Look Beyond On-Screen Liquidity
Many investors use point-in-time statistics for the most recent 30 or 90 trading days to assess the liquidity profile of an ETF that has traded on an exchange for longer than just the last 30 days. This is a problem because—with the exception of a few highly liquid ETFs—a fund’s liquidity profile can change in different market regimes. This paper explores how ETFs’ liquidity dynamics impact total cost of ownership (TCO), underscoring why investors need to look beyond a single period statistic when analyzing liquidity.
How Market and Fund Profile Changes Impact Liquidity
Many investment strategies require implementation over different periods, potentially occurring over multiple market volatility regimes and not always during periods of persistent tranquility. Volatility in the broader marketplace can impact the liquidity profile of an ETF in the secondary market, in addition to the liquidity of its underlying securities. The type of client base using an ETF can also impact its liquidity profile in the secondary market and should be considered during the due diligence process. For instance, if a fund obtains an identifiable three-and five-year track record of top-decile performance, it could improve the fund’s liquidity profile through an uptick in activity (volumes and flows) from an investor base seeking a high-performing time-tested strategy. Robust liquidity due diligence, therefore, must be tailored to account for shifts in market volatility, client demand and user base.
To illustrate the value of a regime-dependent due diligence process, we chose two ETFs focused on the same market, which we will refer to as Fund A and Fund B. Let’s compare the TCO based on expense ratio and transaction costs, with other factors (tracking error, commissions) held constant:
Fund A has the lowest expense ratio. Fund B has a slight bid-ask spread advantage over the past 90 days, but it is condensed over the past 30 days, underscoring the need to look beyond one data point. The difference between the 30-and 90-day spreads also suggests the potential for a near-term trend forming, which requires a deeper look. The lower-cost fund, therefore, depends on the lookback period used, a major flaw of period-based analytics. Perhaps Fund A has the lower total cost. Perhaps not.
Key Observations
Reviewing just one period in time may not capture all of the different trading environments as market volatility and client demand can change over time. Average spread and volume data can be skewed depending on market and client dynamics during the time period being considered. There are days within those periods where spreads can be much higher or much lower. Therefore, it’s important to take a deeper dive into the data.
Market-Based Analysis
Because an ETF’s assets and trading volume can ebb and flow, we believe it’s helpful to focus on at least two years of data when conducting both market-based and fund-specific regime analysis. Too short of a time period may not allow for multiple market environments to be analyzed. With too long a period, analysis could be based on potentially stale data that may not reflect the current market environment and fund profile.
We evaluated Funds A and B from January 2018 through June 2019, a period that covered two market corrections and ensuing rallies, as well as multiple Federal Reserve (Fed) rate hikes and other macro-based events, such as tariff-driven US-China trade tensions. Next, we extended the analysis beyond simple averages and looked at maximum, minimum and median spread levels over the time period and bucketed the distributions in a histogram to identify the frequency of days with a specific bid-ask spread range.
As illustrated in Figure 2, Fund B has the lower bid-ask spread based on both the median and recent average figures. Fund B also has consistency, trading at less than a 0.03% spread on every single day within this period. Meanwhile, Fund A has had a more normal, but less consistent, distribution —with more than 134 days (34% of observations) having a spread greater than 0.07%. Because the minimum bid-ask spread over this period is similar to the more recent 30-day average, a deeper look is required to explore a potential recent trend that would not be noticeable if an investor looked only at a single data point.
More on Liquidity
Given the variability of the spread for Fund A, the next step is to understand how the spread has changed during different volatility regimes. An increase in market volatility can lead to higher bid-ask spreads on ETFs, with the bulk of the change depending on the fund’s liquidity profile and market focus.
Figure 3 illustrates how Fund A and Fund B behaved during different market volatility regimes. The regime was identified by calculating the rolling 30-day realized standard deviation of returns for the underlying markets of focus. The realized volatility was separated into deciles, with the lowest periods of volatility represented by the first decile and the highest periods represented by the tenth decile. For each decile, we calculated the median bid-ask spread.
Key Findings
Fund A has experienced more variability based on the level of realized volatility of the underlying market. It has also shown a linear relationship between periods of high volatility coinciding with higher spreads. Interestingly, Fund B’s tenth decile, when extended out to three decimals, actually has a median spread of 0.021% —its only decile with a spread that rounds higher than 0.02% flat. This underscores how high volatility regimes can impact overall trading costs, albeit only minimally for Fund B.
Fund Profile Analysis
Dissecting spread levels into specific buckets provides context for the variability of trading costs and how spreads can change significantly based on volatility. While this process can detect certain relationships or patterns, one last step is necessary based on these findings. As documented throughout this analysis, there has been a recent compression of the 30-day bid-ask spread relative to longer time periods. A spread compression like this can occur if there has been a fundamental change in the buying behavior for a fund, whether that’s prompted by a market being in favor, strong returns relative to peers’, or idiosyncratic client-specific drivers, such as an allocation with a model portfolio used across multiple trading platforms.
A time-series analysis of spread changes overlaid on top of asset growth for the defined lookback period can provide insight into whether there has been a shift in Fund A’s demand and user base. Consistent with our preference of looking at more than one statistic, Figure 4 plots the asset growth along with the rolling 5-day average, 30-day average, and 5-day median spread.
Key Findings
While Fund A had been of substantial size prior to 2019, with over $1.5 billion in assets, there was a distinct shift at the start of the year. Assets soared to close to $3 billion, and the bid-ask spreads moved lower. This coincided with the median number of 2019’s daily trades, which is one metric that can be used to measure client demand, surging by 64% from a median daily value of 1,641 in 2018 to 2,686 trades a day in 2019. This illustrates a clear change in the liquidity dynamics for Fund A. As a result, the bid-ask spreads from a time period when the fund was smaller do not reflect the fund’s current demand, user base and profile. To reinforce this fund’s regime change, we recalculated Figure 1 with just 2019 data and found that Fund A distribution was no longer normal, as the spreads compressed and were clustered at lower levels.
Controlling for Size Outliers with Number of Trades
Notably, the dynamics for Fund A did not change entirely, as there was a slight increase in the bid-ask spread in late May and early June, right around the time realized volatility picked up (readings registered in fifth, sixth, and seventh deciles). Fund A is, therefore, not immune to volatility just because assets have increased by 162% since the start of 2018. But the spread didn’t gap as high as before, which is a positive for Fund A. Its sensitivity to volatility, therefore, can be considered to have been reduced as a result of higher assets and client user base. Even with a 0.04% bid-ask spread during the volatility spike, the TCO for Fund A (0.11% + 0.04% = 0.15%) is still below that of Fund B (0.14% + 0.02% = 0.16%).
Fund size had a direct impact on the bid-ask spread here. However, that is not always the case. In this instance, the fund size coincided with an increase in the number of trades being executed. That means it wasn’t one large investor, but many investors seeking out this exposure. With greater demand from many counterparts, trading costs were naturally lowered. Notably, a fund can also be large with one investor holding a majority of the shares outstanding. In that case, that fund has scale but not depth in client base. If that one large client does not trade, volumes are light and liquidity can dry up.
The table below depicts 2019 trading data for two smart beta ETFs that have similar assets, factor of focus and expense ratios. The difference is that Fund D has 90% of its assets owned by one investor.
Key Findings
Not having organic flow from multiple sources —even if the fund itself is large —can be detrimental to a fund’s liquidity profile, particularly in volatile markets that result in higher spreads. That’s why examining the diversity and number of investors —in addition to spreads, trading volume and assets under management —should be a consideration while conducting a fund’s liquidity analysis.
Analyzing and Trading Costs: A Multistep Process
Determining which fund is more beneficial to use depends on an investor’s typical execution strategy, trading frequency, order size and the emphasis placed on maintaining low expense ratio profiles within a broader portfolio.
After running multiple screens, the results of our analysis differ at each step:
- Based on the 30-day average bid-ask spread, Fund A is the fund to select.
- Based on the 90-day average bid-ask spread, Fund A or B could be selected.
- Based on volatility regime and frequency analysis, Fund B has shown more consistency.
- Based on using more recent data and client usage information after a change in the fund’s profile, Fund A results in the lower overall cost.
The bottom line is that getting to this answer, however fluid it is, requires more than just a simple screen of the past 30 days of trading —especially if trading volumes are light and market volatility is low.
ssga.com/etfs
State Street Global Advisors One Iron Street, Boston MA 02210 T: +1 866 787 2257
Important Risk Information
ETFs trade like stocks, are subject to investment risk, fluctuate in market value and may trade at prices above or below the ETFs’ net asset value. Brokerage commissions and ETF expenses will reduce returns.
Frequent trading of ETFs could significantly increase commissions and other costs, such that they may offset any savings from low fees or costs.
These investments may have difficulty in liquidating an investment position without taking a significant discount from current market value, which can be a significant problem with certain lightly traded securities.
Investing involves risk, including the risk of loss of principal.
Bonds generally present less short-term risk and volatility than stocks but contain interest rate risk (as interest rates raise, bond prices usually fall); issuer default risk; issuer credit risk; liquidity risk; and inflation risk. These effects are usually pronounced for longer-term securities. Any fixed income security sold or redeemed prior to maturity may be subject to a substantial gain or loss.
The whole or any part of this work may not be reproduced, copied or transmitted or any of its contents disclosed to third parties without SSGA’s express written consent.
The information provided does not constitute investment advice and it should not be relied on as such. It should not be considered a solicitation to buy or an offer to sell a security. It does not take into account any investor's particular investment objectives, strategies, tax status or investment horizon. You should consult your tax and financial advisor. All information is from SSGA unless otherwise noted and has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy is not guaranteed. There is no representation or warranty as to the current accuracy, reliability or completeness of, nor liability for, decisions based on such information and it should not be relied on as such.
Equity securities may fluctuate in value in response to the activities of individual companies and general market and economic conditions.
Standard & Poor’s® , S&P® and SPDR® are registered trademarks of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC (S&P); Dow Jones is a registered trademark of Dow Jones Trademark Holdings LLC (Dow Jones); and these trademarks have been licensed for use by S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC (SPDJI) and sublicensed for certain purposes by State Street Corporation. State Street Corporation’s financial products are not sponsored, endorsed, sold or promoted by SPDJI, Dow Jones, S&P, their respective affiliates and third party licensors and none of such parties make any representation regarding the advisability of investing in such product(s) nor do they have any liability in relation thereto, including for any errors, omissions, or interruptions of any index.
State Street Global Advisors Funds Distributors, LLC Member FINRA, SIPC.
© 2020 State Street Corporation.
All Rights Reserved.