Banks and insurance companies should be most concerned about BlackRock’s entrance into the buffered ETFs market because they offered structured products, which can offer similar pay-off frameworks, says an expert.BRENDAN MCDERMID/Reuters
Sign up for the Globe Advisor weekly newsletter for professional financial advisors on our newsletter sign-up page. Get exclusive investment industry news and insights, the week’s top headlines, and what you and your clients need to know. For more from Globe Advisor, visit our homepage.
BlackRock Inc. has fired the opening salvo in a widely anticipated price war among providers of U.S. buffered exchange-traded funds (ETFs) with its launch on June 30 of two ETFs that provide insurance against market falls.
U.S. buffered ETFs, which normally charge annual fees of 75-85 basis points, attracted inflows of US$11.1-billion in last year’s turbulent markets, up from what had been a record of US$4.3-billion in 2021, according to FactSet.
The data provider said flows show no sign of abating despite this year’s calmer trading, with U.S. buffered ETFs attracting US$4.6-billion year-to-date.
Now BlackRock has entered the defined outcome ETF market for the first time with two funds: iShares Large Cap Moderate Buffer ETF IVVM-A and iShares Large Cap Deep Buffer ETF IVVB-A, undercutting rivals with annual fees of just 50bps each.
Also known as defined outcome ETFs, the vehicles use derivatives to give investors some downside protection if the market falls, but in return investors have to give up some of their gains if the market rises.
iShares Large Cap Moderate Buffer ETF aims to protect against the first 5 per cent of quarterly losses, while iShares Large Cap Deep Buffer ETF seeks to protect against quarterly losses ranging from 5-20 per cent.
“Last year’s tumultuous market environment really put the category on investors’ radar and that momentum has carried over into 2023,” says Nate Geraci, president of The ETF Store, a financial advisor.
“Given the growing popularity and high average price point – [81bps according to his data] – of defined outcome ETFs, this was simply too attractive of an opportunity for BlackRock to pass up,” he adds.
He notes that BlackRock was significantly undercutting its primary competition.
“My expectation is that they’ll continue applying fee pressure on this entire ETF category,” he says, adding that he would therefore expect fees to settle in below 40bps in the longer term.
There are five providers in the U.S. buffered ETF category. The largest, with about US$13-billion in assets under management, is Innovator Capital Management LLC, closely followed by First Trust with US$12.8-billion. Their nearest rival, Allianz, has only US$1.3-billion, according to data from FactSet.
But the category has been growing fast.
Aniket Ullal, head of ETF data and analytics and CFRA, a data provider and consultancy, says that at the end of 2022 there were 170 buffer ETFs in the U.S. with US$21-billion in assets, but that this number had grown to 188 as of June 26, with US$28-billion in assets.
Despite the price competition that BlackRock’s entry heralds, Elisabeth Kashner, director of global fund analytics at FactSet, says the largest cost to buffered ETF investors was not the expense ratio, but the foregone dividend.
Investors in iShares Core S&P 500 ETF IVV-A will receive regular dividend income, she explains, whereas those in iShares Large Cap Moderate Buffer ETF and iShares Large Cap Deep Buffer ETF will not.
“The price return versus total return element is the same across providers. All in all, buffered ETFs are expensive insurance against short-term losses,” Ms. Kashner says. “That said, BlackRock’s product will be more attractive than its competitors, because of the reduced fee,” she adds.
Mr. Geraci argues that banks and insurance companies should be most concerned about BlackRock’s entrance into the buffered ETFs market because they offered structured products, which can offer similar pay-off frameworks.
“[Buffered ETFs will] continue grabbing market share from the traditional structured product space, which features opacity, illiquidity, credit risk and much higher fees,” Mr. Geraci says.
© The Financial Times Limited 2023. All Rights Reserved. FT and Financial Times are trademarks of the Financial Times Ltd. Not to be redistributed, copied, or modified in any way.
For more from Globe Advisor, visit our homepage.