Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) have been recently booming in popularity and enjoy great praise for their flexibility and accessibility in terms of liquidity. They allow investors convenient exposure to less liquid assets such as corporate bonds. But liquid ETF instrument based on illiquid assets is a recipe for a lot of hidden problems (and sometimes disasters), especially in such a turbulent period on fixed income markets as it’s now. There are various certain specifics which come with creation of new ETFs and problems for buying of underling prospects to match the fund’s NAV. Chris Reilly’s paper (2022) revolves around the point that ETF managers encourage Authorized Participants (APs) to more aggressively arbitrage tracking errors to the benefit of ETF investors while simultaneously allowing APs to interact strategically with ETF portfolios at the expense of ETF investors. Underlying asset liquidity is a first-order determinant of optimal security design for ETFs. While these ETFs do underperform their benchmark by greater than their stated net expense ratios (as much as claimed 48 bps p.a.), they still offer a liquid alternative for investors that do not have the resources to manage their own fixed income portfolio. This summary could be taken as a good reminder that investors’ expenses to obtain liquidity in the fixed income space are often quite substantial.

Passive index funds are believed to offer low fees, nearly limitless liquidity, very low trading costs and (most of the time) they beat most active managers. Although not all of the above are accurate, there are still many arguments in favour of passive indexing. However, what is often left forgotten are avoidable travails linked to index funds. In general, after an index rebalances, traditional cap-weighted index funds buy high and sell low. Their tendency to add recent highfliers and drop unloved value stocks is what causes investors to lose. Arnott et al. (2022) target the stock selection problem around index rebalancing and propose several ideas on how to adjust index strategies in order to earn above-market returns. They present simple ways to construct an index, thanks to which it is possible to reduce both negative effects of buy-high/sell-low dynamic and the turnover costs of cap-weighted indices.

At the moment, there is a lot of attention surrounding overnight anomalies in various types of financial markets. While such effects have been well documented in research, especially in US equities and derivatives, there are other asset classes that are not as well addressed. A recent (2022) paper from Jiang, Luo, and Ye contributed appealing evidence in favor of validating these phenomena in the Chinese market. We highlight the finding that the market MKT factor beta premium is earned exclusively overnight and tend to reverse intraday (and in smaller potency also value HML and profitability RMW), which is the same finding as for the US equities. In contrast, the size SMB factor exhibit significantly opposite pattern: positive intraday premium and negative overnight premium (and the same for investment CMA factor).

Choosing the correct portfolio-construction techniques is very important. The new paper that is written by Amar Soebhag, Bart van Vliet, and Patrick Verwijmeren explores the various ways in which different design choices in portfolio construction can, either intentionally or unintentionally, influence and distort the statistical results of a market factor’s research. Their takeaway is that seemingly small differences in design can significantly impact the resultant portfolio’s performance.