Credit: Shutterstock photoDrew Voros
ETF.com Editor-in-Chief
The record amount of new assets flowing into U.S.-listed ETFs continued unabated in August. Investors added $29.9 billion into U.S.-listed ETFs during the month, enough to break two key milestones.
The first was the annual inflows record from 2016. That former record was surpassed midmonth, when year-to-date inflows edged above $287.5 billion. Then, just days ago, year-to-date inflows eclipsed another landmark, rising above $300 billion for the first time. The latest record as of today is $303.7 billion and counting.
To put that in perspective, last year at this time, inflows through the first eight months of the year totaled $143.2 billion. In other words, inflows this year are running at more than double last year's pace.
Investors distributed their money relatively evenly between the various ETF segments. U.S. equity ETFs, international equity ETFs and U.S. fixed-income ETFs had around $8 billion worth of inflows apiece.
Inverse VIX & Gold In Favor
In terms of inflows, the usual suspects dominated the list. The SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY), the iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) and the Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets ETF (VEA) took the top three spots, with creations of almost $2 billion or more during August.
The most unusual name on the top 10 was the ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF (SVXY), with inflows of $907 million. Assets under management in the fund skyrocketed to $1.4 billion as investors used August's spike in volatility to bargain-hunt in the inverse-VIX ETF. (More on volatility ETFs.)
Outflows From Sector ETFs
Meanwhile, the outflows list for August was chock full of sector funds. The Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLP), the Consumer Discretionary Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLY), the Health Care Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLV) and the Financial Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLF) all had outflows ranging from $500 million to $1.4 billion.
In total there is now more than $3.08 trillion in assets of U.S.-listed ETFs.
IndexIQ Cuts & Raises Fees
IndexIQ has changed the expense ratios for nearly half of its ETFs, penciling in not just a number of fee cuts but also fee increases in a lineup that includes its most popular strategy, the $1 billion IQ Hedge Multi-Strategy Tracker ETF (QAI).
Four ETFs saw their fees lowered, effective this week, with the reductions ranging from 1 to 9 basis points. The funds each have assets ranging from $4 million to $187 million.
Six ETFs, including QAI, had their expense ratios increased anywhere from 1 to 13 basis points in a move that’s relatively unusual in the ETF space these days, where competitiveness over costs is frequently referred to as “a race to the bottom.” The changes come on the heels of a round of fee cuts by iShares earlier this month.
The fee reductions include:
IQ Enhanced Core Bond U.S. ETF (AGGE) now costs 0.32%, down from 0.34%
IQ Hedge Macro Tracker ETF (MCRO) now costs 1.00%, down from 1.02%
IQ Hedge Long/Short Tracker ETF (QLS) now costs 1.00%, down from 1.09%
IQ Global Resources ETF (GRES) now costs 0.77%, down from 0.78%
The fee increases include:
IQ Hedge Multi-Strategy Tracker ETF (QAI) now costs 0.98%, up from 0.96%
IQ Enhanced Core Plus Bond U.S. ETF (AGGP) now costs 0.39%, up from 0.35%
IQ Real Return ETF (CPI) now costs 0.66%, up from 0.62%
IQ Leaders GTAA Tracker ETF (QGTA) now costs 0.68%, up from 0.55%
IQ Hedge Market Neutral Tracker ETF (QMN) now costs 0.95%, up from 0.94%
IQ Global Oil Small Cap ETF (IOIL) now costs 0.79%, up from 0.76%
IndexIQ was not immediately available to comment on the changes. However, almost all of the changes affected ETFs that invest primarily in other ETFs.
Drew Voros can be reached at dvoros@etf.com.
More On ETF.com
Using Smart Beta ETFs In Fixed Income
Hurricane Fuels Refinery ETFs More Than Oil
A Deeper Dive Into ESG ETF Portfolios
How The Big 3 ETF Issuers Got So Big
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
