They call the practice “ETF stripping,” where a trader discovers a hidden piece of information on a stock, buys an ETF that holds the stock and then (maybe) shorts all the other underlying securities. They get the benefit of long exposure to their illegal info, and (maybe) avoid the scrutiny of the regulators.
On the outside, this seems like a fundamentally stupid, or at least impractical idea. Imagine you know the iPad 2 cures cancer. You try to do this with Apple (NasdaqGS: AAPL), buying QQQQ to get the AAPL exposure and then shorting everything else in the QQQQs. For every share of Apple you get exposure to, you end up with commissions and margin interest on the other 99 shorts. Huge pain, huge commissions, and with an audit trail as wide as autobahn. It also seemed to me like a waste of time, so I set out to debunk the theory. I decided to pull a list of the most viable ETFs for this practice. I limited my search to funds with fewer than 20 underlying securities—more than that and the process of shorting all the other tickers for one long exposure seems ridiculous.
Once I eliminated asset allocation ETFs holding only other ETFs (ONEF, EQL, etc.), I was completely unsurprised to see a list of HOLDRs.
|Ticker||Name||# Holdings||30-Day Average Volume||AUM ($M)|
|BHH||B2B Internet HOLDRS||2||299,727||$7.83|
|IIH||Internet Infrastructure HOLDRS||8||24,771||$13.36|
|IAH||Internet Architecture HOLDRS||14||5,783||$36.18|
|OIH||Oil Services HOLDRS||14||5,025,442||$2,358.94|
|RKH||Regional Bank HOLDRS||17||406,659||$107.08|
HOLDRs, created back during the height of the dot-com era, are the bastard stepchildren of ETFs, living outside the traditional ’40 Act structure and its pesky diversification requirements. They’re small, unitized baskets of stocks. No cash, no management fees, no nothing. A few of the larger HOLDRs, like the Oil and Semiconductor HOLDRs, remain huge trading vehicles.
From our data, however, one unlikely fund has generated a surprising amount of trading volume. The B2B Internet HOLDRS ETF (NYSEArca: BHH) traded an average of 300,000 shares over the last 30 days.
That’s pretty impressive when you consider the fund only holds two stocks.
I actually assumed BHH died as a useful product long ago. Back in the day, I sat on a trading desk and regularly used it to gain access to a group of hot stocks right at the height of the boom. Its composition was a who’s-who of dot-com startups back in 2000.
One by one, each company folded under the weight of the bubble’s burst or got rolled inside someone else until only two companies remained: Ariba Inc. (NasdaqGS: ARBA), making up 91 percent of the fund’s assets; and Internet Capital Group (NasdaqGS: ICGE), one of the last “public VC” firms from the era, representing the other 9 percent.
A trading volume of 300,000 for a tiny, forgotten fund? Something’s going on.
Smart beta isn’t smarter than cap weighting, but it is different, and that’s great for investors.
Trial by fire is one way to discover why ETF transparency matters.
Most people now realize leveraged ETFs can hurt you, but how, then, to use them?
What would a shift out of a mutual fund and into an ETF look like up close?