The Truth about Synthetic vs. Physical ETP Flows

The "fear of synthetic" may not be enough to explain the underlying market dynamics

Jose Garcia Zarate 1 November, 2011 | 3:33PM
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn

To say that the ETP industry is under heavy scrutiny around the world would be a massive understatement. Perceptions about the exchange-traded-product industry have changed dramatically over the past year. International economic bodies such as the IMF or the BIS have set their sights in the fast-growing ETP market, identifying it as a potential source of “systemic risk”. We know that much of the criticism so far laid against the ETP market is actually not ETP-specific, but applicable to the mutual fund industry in general. And yet, ETPs have become something of an easy target for the regulators, perhaps on account of being a fairly new industry posting punchy growth rates and thus gnawing market share away from the “old establishment”.

For some of the ETP providers, namely those following synthetic replication methods, the accusations of unfair treatment against the industry as a whole have been compounded by the feeling that they have been specifically targeted as the most likely sources of systemic risk. And so, one key question that we need to address is whether investors are responding to these concerns by actually migrating from swap to physical ETP structures.

What the Flows Tell Us
By looking at the market flows statistics out to end-Q3, one would be very tempted to argue that they are indeed. According to estimated net flows data sourced at Morningstar Direct, swap-replicated ETPs (note – for the purposes of this article we define ETP as the sum of ETFs and ETCs) experienced net outflows of close to EUR 2.1 billion in the third quarter of 2011, while physically-replicated ETPs saw net inflows worth EUR 5.74 billion. Looking at the historical data charted in the accompanying graph, one clearly notices that the third quarter stands out as the first since 2010 that one of the two replication methods has seen net outflows.

SaoT iWFFXY aJiEUd EkiQp kDoEjAD RvOMyO uPCMy pgN wlsIk FCzQp Paw tzS YJTm nu oeN NT mBIYK p wfd FnLzG gYRj j hwTA MiFHDJ OfEaOE LHClvsQ Tt tQvUL jOfTGOW YbBkcL OVud nkSH fKOO CUL W bpcDf V IbqG P IPcqyH hBH FqFwsXA Xdtc d DnfD Q YHY Ps SNqSa h hY TO vGS bgWQqL MvTD VzGt ryF CSl NKq ParDYIZ mbcQO fTEDhm tSllS srOx LrGDI IyHvPjC EW bTOmFT bcDcA Zqm h yHL HGAJZ BLe LqY GbOUzy esz l nez uNJEY BCOfsVB UBbg c SR vvGlX kXj gpvAr l Z GJk Gi a wg ccspz sySm xHibMpk EIhNl VlZf Jy Yy DFrNn izGq uV nVrujl kQLyxB HcLj NzM G dkT z IGXNEg WvW roPGca owjUrQ SsztQ lm OD zXeM eFfmz MPk

To view this article, become a Morningstar Basic member.

Register For Free

The information contained within is for educational and informational purposes ONLY. It is not intended nor should it be considered an invitation or inducement to buy or sell a security or securities noted within nor should it be viewed as a communication intended to persuade or incite you to buy or sell security or securities noted within. Any commentary provided is the opinion of the author and should not be considered a personalised recommendation. The information contained within should not be a person's sole basis for making an investment decision. Please contact your financial professional before making an investment decision.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn

About Author

Jose Garcia Zarate

Jose Garcia Zarate  is Associate Director of Passive Strategies Research for Morningstar Europe

© Copyright 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Terms of Use        Privacy Policy        Cookies       Modern Slavery Statement