On The Rise Of ETFs As A Driver Of Bond Returns

Tyler Durden's picture

The seemingly inexorable rise of corporate bond ETFs (most specifically HYG and JNK is the high-yield market, and LQD in investment grade) have been discussed at length here as both a 'new' factor in the underlying bond market's technicals (flow) as well as their correlated impact on equity and volatility markets. Goldman Sachs' credit team delve deep into the impact of these relatively new (and rapidly growing) structures with their greater transparency but considerably higher sensitivities and conclude that not only are they here to stay but the consequences of ETF-inclusion (dramatic outperformance bias relative to non-ETF bonds) are deepening the liquidity divide (and relative-value) of what is already a somewhat sparsely-traded market. Our concern is that, as the divide grows (and liquidity is concentrated in ETF bonds), given the crowding tendency we have witnessed, (even with call constraints at extremes thanks to low interest rates), this is yet another crowded 'hot potato' trade hanging like a sword of Damocles over our markets (courtesy of Bernanke's repression).


Via Goldman Sachs: The "ETF Bid" - A Robust Driver of Bond Returns.


The dramatic growth of credit mutual funds over the past five years has been something of a paradigm shift for the US corporate bond market. According to data from Lipper, IG and HY mutual funds manage roughly $1.3tr and $279bn, respectively, up from $525bn and $126bn at the end of 2007. Even when scaled by the overall size of the US corporate bond market, these figures suggest a bigger ownership share of credit mutual funds. Perhaps more impressive is the growth of corporate bond ETFs, whose size for IG and HY has increased to $105bn and $31bn, respectively, from just $12bn and $288mn at the end 2007.

Despite all-time low yields, the appetite for corporate bonds remains firm, with net inflows to IG and HY mutual funds still running at a robust pace.


Inflows to the HY market have been steady all year with the exception of a brief episode of outflows from mid-May to mid-June, while IG inflows have remained firm, having been positive for all but two weeks this year.


As we often point out, the strength of the inflows is by and large a reflection of sluggish growth, which has maintained a friendly outlook for inflation as well as a challenging outlook for growth expectations, trends we expect to persist.

In the past we have extensively analyzed the price impact of mutual fund flows, showing that fund flows provided a significant boost to bond returns in the early months that followed the crisis and gradually normalized afterwards. In this Credit Line, we focus on the ETF market and use bond-level data to quantify the impact of ETFs on the cross-section of IG bonds returns.

Despite their recent growth, ETFs remain a relatively small subset of the mutual fund complex, but they are of particular interest to us, for two reasons. First, unlike mutual funds, ETFs generally try to track an existing bond index and are thus more transparent in terms of their composition. Second, unlike institutional investors, ETF managers need to be fully invested, and thus need to put money to work “urgently” when inflows increase. Intuitively this should make returns on ETF bond constituents more sensitive to flows.


The ETF factor: Is it really there?

Our primary goal is to determine whether, all else equal, the bid for ETFs has boosted the return on their bond constituents, both in absolute terms and relative to the broad market.

More specifically and using the bond constituents of the iBoxx USD domestic index and its sub-index the LQD IG index, which is tracked by one the largest IG ETFs, we investigate the following questions:

  1. Controlling for maturities, ratings, sectors and liquidity, how do the bond constituents of the LQD ETF perform relative to those bonds that are not part of the ETF? Put differently, how do two otherwise identical portfolios of bonds, one with ETF constituents and the other with non-ETF constituents, compare in terms of performance.
  2. To what extent is this relative performance related to ETF flows?

To address the above questions, we use a factor approach and construct hypothetical portfolios, one with only ETF bonds and the other with non-ETF bonds, that have otherwise identical compositions. These portfolios are constructed using the constituents of the iBoxx USD domestic index of which the LQD ETF is a sub-index.

One immediate challenge that such an exercise raises is that our 'ETF' factor might be hard to disentangle from a 'liquidity' factor. In the extreme case where the ETF only include on-the- run bonds, the ETF factor might just be an arte fact for the on-the-run/off-the-run premium. Partly to address this issue, we include an “on-the-run” dummy variable in our regressions.

Our definition of on-the-run bonds uses the following rule. We group our universe of bonds into three buckets in terms of their original maturity: 1- to 7-year, 7-to 15-year and 30-year and longer. Within each of these buckets and for each issuer, we rank the bonds according to their age. The most recently issued bonds are considered on-the-run while the remaining ones are treated as off-the-run.


Exhibits 5 and 6 plot the cumulative total return and spread change since January 2009 for these two otherwise identical portfolios of ETF and non-ETF bonds. The plot shows that after controlling for maturity, rating, sector and the on-the-run/off-the-run premium, ETF bonds outperformed their non-ETF counterparts from the second half of 2009 to the first quarter of 2011. They subsequently underperformed in the second half of 2011 as the European crisis intensified only to resume their outperformance during the LTRO rally and then more recently following Draghi’s speech in July.


Compared to January 2009 and as shown by Exhibit 6, a monthly rebalanced portfolio of ETF bonds trades 268 bps tighter while an identical portfolio of non-ETF bonds trades 200 bps tighter. This suggests that the bid for ETFs has acted as a tailwind for its bond constituents since the economy turned the corner in the second half of 2009.

Exhibit 7 addresses our second question—the relationship between the relative performance of ETF bonds to ETF flows—showing a simple scatter plot of the monthly return on a long ETF vs. non-ETF bonds against the flow 4-week moving average into IG ETFs.


Our estimates indicate that the correlation is decent with every additional $1 bn worth of weekly average inflows to IG ETFs translating into 60 bp of additional monthly return on a strategy that is long/short two otherwise identical portfolios of ETF and non-ETF bonds.

In sum, the above evidence suggests that fund flows to ETFs are likely to remain an
important driver of credit spreads for the foreseeable future.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
jeff314's picture

fuck you bernanke

Silver Bug's picture

Don't listen to anything that Goldman Sachs recommends! Do the opposite!



knukles's picture

There is an absolute (relatively non-quantifiable) assumption built into Goldilock's analysis which is that the existence of ETF's in and of them selves leads to increased demand for the underlying product.

To state unequivocally (or assume such) that there is a bias in favor of ETF's relative to underlying assumes that if the FT were to not exist then demand for the underlying likewise dissipates which is essentially backwards/fallacious and illogical. 

I'd personally assume that if one wished to hold bond (as in this case) one would choose between 3 alternatives: the bonds themselves, a mutual fund which holds said bond or close facsimiles thereof, or and ETF.

For any variety of reasons any of the three decisions might be made but nonetheless only represent differing venues to access the bond market... that being the aggregate demand function for bonds has not shifted but transforms itself through differing vehicles to access the marketplce.

Likewise the other day there was an article that cast the ETF TLT (20+ yr treas) as somewhat suspect by virtue of holding cash in short term funds raised through securities lending activities.
Guess what?  Just about every single mutual fund engages in such activity thus bequeathing no greater risk to the /an ETF than already existent in its comparable brethren, the mutual fund.

Risks such as those can only be eliminated via direct holdings which in many cases, may not make sense... e.g. the inability to properly diversify say, a $10,000 portfolio of high yield bonds... just practically ain't gonna happen. 

This really comes down to the risk preference function of each investor... what form of holding (counter party, manager, custodian, etc) risks does one wish to assume, which can only be identified by reading prospectuses, etc.  ie doing one's own research or relying upon a professional tooled to provide such.

There are a whole host of risks out there that most are not the least bit aware of from the standpoint of the type of investment vehicle employed.
Perhaps the best example would have been the multiple families of utility mutual funds (telecom/water/gas/electric as in public utility) that invested in dot.com stocks during the dot.com rallies to goose returns... in securities which they were never meant to be allowed into.. but they were telecoms... and so Ma and Pa kettle in Dubuque got screwed when the bubble burst .... and their safe, high dividend utility mutual fund went to hell in a handbag.. even after the manager got his big ass performance related bonus...

Yen Cross's picture

Hey Knuckles? Stolper T/P on his eur/usd long. He's batting 1001 now!  I'll bet he's fading Cable right now!

  Every Termite finds some frozen wood! Point being, I agree with ya!

Augustus's picture

Very well written and logical response.

High Yield mutual funds have been available for twenty years.  ITF's havve simply expanded the options, not caused a diversion of assets.

If there has in fact been an illogical amount invested in the asset class, it is a result that comes from the manipulated Fed low rate policy, not from misuse of ETF's as an investment vehicle.

That same low rate policy has the apperance of removing some the economic risk that affects the operations of the issuers, increasing the percieved "safety" in the junk.

vote_libertarian_party's picture

"In sum, the above evidence suggests that fund flows to ETFs are likely to remain an

important driver of credit spreads for the foreseeable future."



....until a stampede starts of people trying to lock in gains....

buzzsaw99's picture

a regression analysis of post race rectal temperatures for $4k claimers at monmouth would be more useful imo

Yen Cross's picture

QQQgree Buzz! I just got back from the ultimate "ETF", helping my mother do some shopping! [ Mall Wart] . She hates that basket of goods, yet buys it?

  Tyler every "Douche Bag", financial wanabe is chasing "beta" right now! As soon as the elections are over, regardless of policy, the ( Jack Boots) and  whips, are gonna get cracked!

q99x2's picture

If I had to venture a guess about about bond etfs I'd guess that they were designed to move your money from you to the bankers that created them. Just a guess.

George Orwell's picture

I do this. Rather than buying bonds directly which is not as liquid I prefer to buy bond ETFs to spread our my risk. The yield is not as high as I would get if I buy from one company directly, but the liquidity more than compensation for the lower yield. Plus bonds is a place to park short to medium term cash, I'm not investing for capital gains.

I rotated out of BLV and into BSV and TIP a couple of months ago. I would not go back into the longer term bonds anytime soon. Again, this is short term cash parking place. It is NOT an investment or growth vehicle.



Grand Supercycle's picture


Due to recent central bank intervention and short covering spikes, these daily charts are extremely overextended and significant correction expected very soon:




wo09's picture

Si vous essayer de trouver des chaussures et sac à main pour votre entreprise personnelle, ou si vous avez vraiment envie d'avoir un revenu supplémentaire en vendant en ligne de vêtements à www.grossiste-de-chine.com, puis essentiel à votre succès dans vos efforts acquiert le haut fournisseur de vêtements en gros

Grossiste Ralph Lauren Polo Pulls, vente en gros Ralph Lauren Polo Pulls, Ralph Lauren Polo Pulls pas cher, Grossiste supra chaussures, vente en gros supra chaussures, supra chaussures pas cher, Grossiste Boss costumes, vente en gros Boss costumes, Boss costumes pas cher, vente en gros moncler vestes, Grossiste moncler vestes, moncler vestes pas cher, vente en gros chanel Sacs à Main, grossiste chanel Sacs à Main, chanel Sacs à Main pas cher