New innovation within the exchange-traded fund (ETF) industry, while offering investors unprecedented access to diverse asset classes and sophisticated strategies, could introduce significant costs and liquidity challenges during periods of extreme market stress. This cautionary sentiment comes from leading voices in the investment management sector, who highlight a growing concern that ETFs delving into increasingly complex derivatives and less transparent markets may find themselves in uncharted territory when confronted with violent economic downturns. The rapid evolution of the ETF wrapper, moving beyond its traditional role of tracking broad market indices, necessitates a heightened level of due diligence from both advisors and individual investors.
Jamie Harrison, Head of ETF Capital Markets at MFS Investment Management, a firm with a storied history dating back to 1924 and credited with inventing the open-end mutual fund, articulated these concerns during a recent appearance on CNBC’s "ETF Edge." Harrison underscored the potential for issues arising from a lack of transparency, particularly when volatility escalates and markets experience deep sell-offs. He warned that funds involved in intricate derivative structures or illiquid underlying assets, such as private credit, could present significant challenges for investors attempting to enter or exit positions at fair prices during turbulent times. The firm, recognized last year by ETF.com as the best new ETF issuer, emphasizes the critical importance of robust portfolio due diligence, strong partnerships with liquidity providers, and an experienced bench of subject matter experts to navigate these complexities.
The growth of the ETF market has been nothing short of explosive since its inception in the early 1990s. Initially designed as transparent, low-cost vehicles to track major indices like the S&P 500, ETFs have diversified dramatically. Today, the global ETF market boasts trillions of dollars in assets under management (AUM) across thousands of products, ranging from sector-specific funds and thematic ETFs to actively managed strategies and those employing sophisticated leverage or inverse mechanisms. This innovation has democratized access to various investment strategies, offering daily liquidity and generally lower expense ratios compared to traditional mutual funds. However, the very characteristics that make ETFs attractive – their exchange-traded nature and promise of liquidity – are now being tested by the underlying assets and strategies some newer funds employ.
The Looming Specter of Liquidity Risk
Harrison explicitly identified liquidity as the fundamental issue, especially pertinent during a steep market sell-off. Traditional ETFs typically maintain liquidity through a robust arbitrage mechanism involving authorized participants (APs). APs create and redeem ETF shares by exchanging them for the underlying basket of securities, ensuring that the ETF’s market price remains tightly aligned with its net asset value (NAV). This mechanism works efficiently when the underlying securities are themselves liquid and easily traded. However, when an ETF holds assets that are inherently illiquid or difficult to price, this arbitrage mechanism can break down, leading to wider bid-ask spreads, significant deviations between market price and NAV, and potentially higher trading costs for investors.
This concern is amplified by the emergence of ETFs designed to hold assets like private credit. Private credit refers to non-bank lending, often directly to companies, which typically involves bespoke loans with unique terms and a lack of secondary market trading. These investments are inherently illiquid, designed for long holding periods, and often subject to complex valuation methodologies. Packaging such assets into an ETF, which promises daily liquidity, creates a fundamental mismatch between the fund’s trading characteristics and the liquidity profile of its underlying holdings. Harrison noted that the picture for potential private credit ETFs "becomes much more murky," urging advisors and investors to "really dig in and look under the hood and engage with their issuers."
Specific Red Flags: Private Credit and Equity-Linked Notes
Christian Magoon, CEO of Amplify ETFs, echoed Harrison’s apprehension regarding how these newer ETF strategies might perform during a significant market drawdown. He specifically highlighted private credit as a "red flag," emphasizing the inherent mismatch between the rapid trading pace of ETFs and the underlying illiquid nature of private credit assets. The question then becomes: what happens when a large number of investors attempt to redeem shares of a private credit ETF during a crisis? The ETF manager might struggle to sell the underlying private loans quickly or at fair prices, potentially leading to forced sales at distressed valuations or a temporary suspension of redemptions, trapping investors.
Magoon also raised concerns about equity-linked notes (ELNs), another complex derivative strategy. ELNs are debt instruments that provide fixed income security while offering a return linked to the performance of an underlying stock, basket of stocks, or equity index. While they can offer diversification and potentially higher returns, they carry both credit risk (the risk that the issuer of the note defaults) and market risk (related to the underlying equity performance). In a major drawdown, or if there’s contagion within the private credit market or broader banking system, the creditworthiness of ELN issuers could come under severe stress. This, in turn, could impact the value and liquidity of ETFs holding such notes, potentially leading to rapid depreciation and difficulty in exiting positions. Magoon advised investors to "very closely look at any ETF that has equity-linked notes should we get into a major drawdown or there be a contagion in private credit or something related to the banking system."
Historical Context and Regulatory Scrutiny
The financial industry has witnessed periods of extreme volatility before, such as the 2008 global financial crisis and the rapid, sharp sell-off in March 2020 at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. During these events, traditional, highly liquid ETFs generally performed well, with their market prices tracking NAV closely, demonstrating the resilience of the AP arbitrage mechanism. However, these past crises largely involved highly liquid underlying assets like publicly traded stocks and investment-grade bonds. The landscape of ETF innovation has since broadened to include more exotic and less liquid assets, creating new untested scenarios.
Regulators, particularly the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), are continuously monitoring the evolution of the ETF market. While generally supportive of innovation that benefits investors, the SEC is also keenly focused on investor protection, market stability, and ensuring that products are transparent and suitable for their target audience. The expansion into private assets and complex derivatives within the ETF wrapper presents new challenges for oversight, as existing rules designed for traditional equity or bond ETFs may not adequately address the unique risks posed by these newer structures. The SEC often requires new product types to demonstrate how they will maintain liquidity, ensure fair valuation, and provide adequate disclosure to investors, especially for those that deviate significantly from conventional ETF structures. This ongoing dialogue between innovators and regulators is crucial for the healthy development of the market.
The Imperative of Investor Due Diligence
Given these evolving complexities, the onus falls heavily on financial advisors and individual investors to conduct rigorous due diligence. Harrison outlined a series of critical questions investors must pose to issuers: "What does this look like in a 20% drawdown? How does this liquidity facility work? Am I going to be able to get in? Am I going to be able to get out? And if I’m able to get out, am I able to get out at a price that’s tight to NAV [net asset value], and what’s the infrastructure at your shop in terms of managing that consideration for me?" These questions go beyond simply looking at expense ratios or past performance; they delve into the operational resilience of the ETF during stress.
Investors should scrutinize the ETF’s prospectus, paying close attention to the underlying assets, the valuation methodology for illiquid holdings, the composition of the creation/redemption basket, and the issuer’s track record and infrastructure for managing capital markets. A firm like MFS Investment Management, with its deep historical roots and experience in managing complex funds, emphasizes the value of institutional strength, robust risk management frameworks, and established relationships with prime brokers and APs. The ability of an issuer to effectively manage the trading of an ETF, particularly one with less liquid assets, hinges on these foundational elements.
Broader Market Implications and the Path Forward
The concerns raised by industry experts are not intended to stifle innovation but rather to foster a more cautious and informed approach to the next generation of ETFs. The implications of widespread liquidity issues in complex ETFs could extend beyond individual investors, potentially impacting broader market stability if a significant portion of the financial system relies on these vehicles for liquidity. Maintaining investor confidence in the ETF structure is paramount for its continued growth and utility as an investment tool.
The dialogue surrounding these innovative ETFs highlights the ongoing tension between providing investors with access to new strategies and ensuring adequate safeguards. While the benefits of diversification, lower costs, and active management within the ETF wrapper are undeniable, these advantages must be weighed against the potential for unexpected risks in extreme market conditions. The future of ETF innovation will likely involve a delicate balance: continuing to push the boundaries of what an ETF can hold, while simultaneously enhancing transparency, strengthening liquidity provisions, and educating investors on the unique characteristics and potential pitfalls of these advanced products. Ultimately, the industry must ensure that the pursuit of innovation does not come at an unacceptable cost to investor protection and market integrity, especially when the financial landscape turns volatile.
About the Author
