We analyze how ETFs compete. Drawing on a new model and empirical analysis, we show that ETF secondary market liquidity plays a key role in determining fees. More liquid ETFs for a given index charge higher fees and attract short-horizon investors who are more sensitive to liquidity than to fees. Higher turnover from these investors sustains the ETF’s high liquidity, allowing the ETF to extract a rent through its fee, and creating a first-mover advantage. Liquidity segmentation through clientele effects generates welfare losses. Our findings resolve the apparent paradox that higher-fee ETFs not only survive but also flourish in equilibrium.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khomyn et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: