Connect with us


What are active non-transparent ETFs?



When people talk about active exchange traded funds they are referring to two broad types of actively managed ETFs. Both differ from traditional passively managed ETFs because they do not track a pre-determined basket of securities and nor do they aim to replicate the performance of their chosen index, for example the S&P 500, as closely as possible.

Instead an active ETF fund manager makes active choices and regular changes to the securities the ETF is invested in with the aim of outperforming its benchmark. 

How do smart beta ETFs differ from active ETFs?

The first move towards active investment strategies within an ETF wrapper came with so-called smart beta products, which seek to achieve outperformance by reweighting the underlying index with a new rules-based approach such as following momentum or choosing securities based on their value.

However, smart beta ETFs are still rules based even if they no longer follow a simple market capitalisation-weighted index. The rules for smart beta products are pre-determined and the portfolio will change according to the rules — for example value-based, or momentum strategy ETFs will adjust their weightings of their constituents depending on their price/earnings ratio or whether the constituents are rising or falling in price.

How active ETFs have developed

The first truly active ETF was launched in 2008. The aim was to allow an active fund manager to implement their own strategies while using the ETF wrapper. They have been slow to take off, however, with active ETFs accounting for a tiny fraction of ETF assets under management. 

Their slow growth might be due to their traditional structure. Traditional active ETFs, like their passive counterparts, report their positions daily and are priced throughout the day.

The second variety is the semi-transparent or non-transparent active ETF. This type of vehicle was only approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2019 and allows fund managers to keep the content of their ETF portfolio hidden on a daily basis, reporting their contents as infrequently as every month or every quarter.

Column chart of Total assets ($bn) showing Actively managed ETFs

Which kind of active ETF is better for investors?

Traditional active ETFs have been slow to take off because their requirement for transparency meant any investor could see what the fund was invested in and how much of those securities it owned on a daily basis. This meant other investors were able to “front run” the funds.

It also meant that a mutual fund following the same strategy represented a potential advantage because it only had to reveal its portfolio infrequently.

In contrast to traditional active ETFs, managers of transparent and semi or non-transparent active ETFs are able to take positions without them being visible on a daily basis to the rest of the market. Many industry participants say this new model, if it becomes widely adopted, could transform the industry and accelerate the closure of mutual funds.

It is important to note, however, that both traditional active ETFs and the newer, less transparent varieties tend to come with higher costs than their traditional index-tracking counterparts.

How do active non-transparent ETFs work?

At the time of writing, less transparent active ETFs had only been approved in North America and Australia. In Europe, regulators have been reluctant to press ahead, according to HANetf, a white-label ETF provider, because they feared authorised participants would have privileged information opening up the possibility of market abuse.

There are several different non-transparent structures in the US.

Diagram showing how active non-transparent ETFs work using an intermediary (APR)

Some providers have adopted a model which use an intermediary called an authorised participant representative (APR) to facilitate the creation and redemption mechanism. When an authorised participant wants to create shares, an intermediary, which knows the real content of the ETF, buys the stocks in the creation basket and delivers them to the sponsor which creates the ETF shares that are then passed to the authorised participants.

When the AP wants to redeem shares, the intermediary receives the basket of securities, sells them using the confidential account and passes the proceeds to the AP. To induce the APs to participate, this model relies on an intraday indicative value which is updated several times a minute.

Diagram showing how active non-transparent ETFs  work using a proxy porfolio

Another model requires the ETFs to reveal a proxy basket of securities every day. The holdings of the basket overlap, but are not identical to, the actual portfolio.

A further model discloses all the holdings in the ETF, but not how much of each security is being held.

One problem with opacity is that fewer authorised participants, which create or redeem shares in the ETF to manage demand, or market makers, which ensure liquidity and provide pricing, will be aware of the exact securities that underlie the portfolios. Experts are still divided on whether this will make a substantive difference to retail investors.

Another potential problem is higher transaction costs. Active non-transparent and semi-transparent ETF providers are required to provide additional information to help the market price their funds, but as there is still less information than for traditional ETFs bid-ask spreads could end up being wider, generating higher transaction costs.

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


ExxonMobil proposes carbon storage plan for Texas port




ExxonMobil is pitching a plan to capture and store carbon dioxide emitted by industrial facilities around Houston that it said could attract $100bn in investment if the Biden administration put a price on the greenhouse gas.

The oil supermajor is touting the scheme ahead of the US climate summit starting on Thursday, where President Joe Biden plans to announce more aggressive national emissions targets and hopes to spur world leaders to increase their own carbon-cutting goals.

Carbon capture and storage, or CCS, “should be a key part of the US strategy for meeting its Paris goals and included as part of the administration’s upcoming Nationally Determined Contributions”, said Joe Blommaert, head of Exxon’s low-carbon focused business, referring to the targets that countries are required to submit under the 2015 Paris climate agreement.

Oil and gas producers have sought to highlight their commitments to tackle emissions ahead of this week’s climate talks, which promise to heap pressure on the fossil fuel industry. BP pledged to stop flaring natural gas in Texas’ Permian oilfields by 2025, while EQT, the country’s largest natural gas producer, said it backed federal methane regulations.

The International Energy Agency has called carbon capture and storage, which uses chemicals to strip carbon dioxide from industrial emissions, “critical for putting energy systems around the world on a sustainable path”.

But the technology has struggled to gain traction as costs have remained persistently high. The most recent setback in the US came last year with the mothballing of the Petra Nova project, the country’s largest, which captured carbon from a Texas coal-fired power plant.

Many environmental groups have been critical of the oil and gas industry’s focus on carbon capture, arguing it is used to justify continued investment in oil and gas production and is not economical, especially as the costs of zero-carbon wind and solar power have plummeted.

Exxon said that establishing a market price on carbon — which has been attempted by a handful of US states, Texas not among them — would be important. The US government should “implement policies to enable CCS to receive direct investment and incentives similar to those available to other efforts to reduce emissions”, Blommaert said.

Exxon declined to comment on the carbon price it thought was needed to justify the investment, but said its plan would generate $100bn of investment from companies and government in the Houston region.

The company’s plans call for a hub that would capture emissions from the 50 largest emitting industrial facilities along the Houston Ship Channel, such as oil refineries and petrochemical plants, and ship the carbon by pipeline to reservoirs for storage deep under the sea floor of the Gulf of Mexico.

The project could capture and store about 100m tonnes of CO2 a year by 2040 if developed, Exxon said. That is 2 per cent of the roughly 4.6bn tonnes of US energy-related carbon emissions in 2020, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Exxon has been under intense pressure from investors, including a proxy fight with the activist hedge fund Engine No 1, to bolster its strategy for the transition to cleaner fuels. In February, it created a low-carbon business line that it said would spend about $3bn over the next five years.

Biden’s $2tn clean-energy focused infrastructure plan would expand carbon capture and storage tax credits. The administration said it would back 10 projects focused on capturing carbon from heavy industry, but it did not endorse a price on carbon.

Climate Capital

Where climate change meets business, markets and politics. Explore the FT’s coverage here 

Source link

Continue Reading


European stocks hit record after strong US earnings and economic data




European equities hovered around record levels, the dollar dropped and government bonds nudged higher on Monday as markets continued to cheer strong economic data while also banking on continued support from the US Federal Reserve.

The regional Stoxx Europe 600 index gained 0.3 per cent during the morning to set a new record, before falling back to trade flat.

This follows a week of upbeat earnings from US banks as investors await results from big businesses including Coca-Cola and IBM later on Monday. Data released last week showed US homebuilding surged to a near 15-year high in March while retail sales increased by the most in 10 months.

The dollar, as measured against a basket of currencies, fell 0.4 per cent as bets on higher interest rates receded. The euro rose 0.4 per cent against the dollar to buy at $1.203. Sterling also gained 0.4 per cent to €1.389.

Federal Reserve chair Jay Powell told the Economic Club of Washington DC last week that the central bank would not taper its $120bn of monthly asset purchases until it saw “substantial further progress” towards full employment.

Haven assets such as government debt remained in demand. As prices ticked up, the yield on the benchmark 10-year US Treasury note fell 0.02 percentage points to 1.557 per cent, while the yield on the equivalent German Bund slid 0.01 percentage points to minus 0.271 per cent.

Investing convention assumes that US Treasuries and global equities move in opposite directions to cushion against falls in either asset class, but both have now rallied in tandem for an unusually sustained period.

The S&P 500, the blue-chip US stock index, has risen for four consecutive weeks to set new records. The yield on the 10-year Treasury has fallen from about 1.74 per cent at the end of March to just under 1.56 per cent on Monday as investors bought the debt. Treasuries and US stocks not have risen together for so long since 2008, according to Deutsche Bank.

Futures markets indicated the S&P would drift 0.2 per cent lower as Wall Street trading opens.

“I am not saying it’s a rational time in the markets,” said Yuko Takano, equity fund manager at Newton Investment Management. A reason for caution, she added, was signs of “bubbles” in alternative assets such as cryptocurrencies and non-fungible tokens. “There is really an abundance of liquidity. There will be a correction at some point but it is hard to time when it will come.”

“Markets may have become temporarily overbought,” strategists at Credit Suisse commented. “For now, we prefer to keep equity allocations at neutral” rather than buying more stocks, they said.

In Asia, Hong Kong’s Hang Seng index closed up 0.5 per cent and Japan’s Topix slid 0.2 per cent.

Global oil benchmark Brent crude fell 0.3 per cent to $66.57 a barrel.

Source link

Continue Reading


EU split over delay to decision on classing gas as green investment




The European Commission is split over whether to postpone a decision on classifying gas generated from fossil fuels as green energy under its landmark classification system for investors.

Brussels had planned to publish an updated draft of a taxonomy for sustainable finance later this week. The document is designed to guide those who want to direct their money into environmentally friendly investments, and help stamp out the misreporting of companies’ environmental impact, known as greenwashing. 

The commission was forced to revamp its initial proposals earlier this year after the text was criticised by member states which want gas to be explicitly recognised as a low-emission technology that can help the EU meet its goal of becoming a net-zero polluter by 2050. 

Now the publication of the draft rules could be postponed again as the commission seeks to resolve the impasse. According to a draft of the text seen by the Financial Times, the commission proposed to delay the decision in order to carry out a separate assessment of how gas and nuclear “contribute to decarbonisation” to allow for a more “transparent” debate about the technologies.

But officials told the FT that some commissioners were pushing for gas to be awarded the green label now, rather than delaying the decision until later this year. 

“There are a sizeable number of voices in the commission who want gas to be included in the taxonomy,” said one official. A final decision on whether to approve the current text or delay it again for further redrafting is likely to be made on Monday.

The EU’s taxonomy is being closely watched by investors as the first big attempt by a leading regulatory body to create a labelling scheme that will help guide billions of euros of investment into green financial products.

But the process has proved divisive, as several EU governments have demanded recognition for lower-emissions energy sources such as gas. 

Coal-reliant countries such as Poland, Hungary, Romania and others that are banking on gas to help reduce their emissions do not want the labelling system to discriminate against them. France and the Czech Republic, meanwhile, are also pushing for the recognition of nuclear as a “transitional” technology in the taxonomy.

A leaked legal text seen by the FT earlier this month paved the way for gas to be considered green in some limited circumstances. That has since been removed along with other sensitive topics such as how best to classify the agricultural sector, according to the latest draft the FT has seen.

EU governments and the European Parliament have the power to block the draft if they can muster a qualified majority of countries and MEPs against it. 

Environmental groups have hailed the exercise, and urged Brussels to stick to science-based criteria in defining the thresholds for sustainable economic activity.

Luca Bonaccorsi from the Transport & Environment NGO said delaying decisions on gas and nuclear risked allowing pro-nuclear countries like France and the Czech Republic to join up with pro-gas member states “to forge an alliance that will obtain the greening and inclusion of both energy sources”.

“Should they ally, it will be impossible to resist the greenwashing of these two unsustainable energy sources,” said Bonaccorsi. 

The delays in agreeing the taxonomy have forced Brussels to abandon an attempt to use it as the basis for EU green bonds that will be issued as part of the bloc’s €800bn recovery and resilience fund. About €250bn of debt will be issued in the form of sustainable bonds over the next few years, which will make the commission one of the world’s biggest issuers of sustainable debt.

Source link

Continue Reading