What are the gains from more liquidity in ETF for small investors?
One of the often cited advantages of ETFs is that they have a higher   liquidity and that they can be traded at any time during the trading   hours. On the other hand they are often proposed as a simple way to   invest private funds for people that do not want to always keep an eye   on the market, hence the intraday trading is mostly irrelevant for   them. I am pretty sure that this is a subjective idea. The fact is you may buy GOOG, AAPL, F or whatever you wish(ETF as well, such as QQQ, SPY etc.) and keep them for a long time. In both cases, if you do not want to keep an on the market it is ok. Because, if you keep them it is called investment(the idea is collecting dividends etc.), if you are day trading then is it called speculation, because you main goal is to earn by buying and selling, of course you may loose as well. So, you do not care about dividends or owning some percent of the company. As, ETFs are derived instruments, their volatility depends on the volatility of the related shares. I'm wondering whether there are secondary effects that make the   liquidity argument interesting for private investors, despite not   using it themselves. What would these effects be and how do they   impact when compared, for example, to mutual funds? Liquidity(ability to turn cash) could create high volatility which means high risk and high reward. From this point of view mutual funds are more safe. Because, money managers know how to diversify the total portfolio and manage income under any market conditions. ETFs are both liquid (benefits active traders) and a simple way for people to invest in funds even if they don't have the minimum balance needed to invest in a mutual fund (EDIT: in which purchases are resolved at the end of the trading day). One big difference between ETFs and mutual funds is that you must buy ETFs in whole units, whereas you can add $100 to a mutual fund and the fund will determine -- usually to 4 decimal places -- how many shares you've purchased. In my opinion, if you are doing long-term investing, this is a non-issue.  The difference of hours in being able to trade an ETF during the day vs. only being able to trade a traditional mutual fund at day-end is irrelevant if you are holding the investment for a long time. If you are engaging in day trading, market timing, or other advanced/controversial trading practices, then I suppose it could make a difference. For the way I invest (index funds, long-term, set-it-and-forget-it), ETFs have no advantage over traditional mutual funds.
OK, VERY glad you get that idea!  The problem with the ETF is: it's the monkeys-throwing-darts method. If the average (dollar-weighted) member stock in the ETF goes up, you win, but if half of them go under, and half succeed, over some time periods you will lose (and win over others).  I guess my POV is: if you can't do serious research into the expected success of an individual company, maybe it's too risky to even try betting on the whole group. YMMV. The problem with your investment plan is: you are depending on luck, and the assumption the group will increase in value over your investment period. I prefer research over hope. I'd think that liquidity and speed are prioritized (even over retail brokers and in come cases over PoP) for institutional traders who by default have large positions.  When the going gets tough, these guys are out and the small guys - trading through average retail brokers - are the ones left holding the empty bag. Note, the main trade off here is the costs of holding cash rather than being invested for a few months vs trading costs from trading every month.  Let's start by understanding investing every month vs every three months.  First compare holding cash for two months (at ~0% for most Canadians right now) and then investing on the third month vs being invested in a single stock etf (~5% annually?).  At those rates she is forgoing equity returns of around  These costs and the $10 for one big trade give total costs of $16+$8+$10=$34 dollars.   If you were to trade every month instead there would be no cost for not being invested and the trading costs over three months would just be 3*$10=$30.  So in this case it would be better to trade monthly instead of every three months. However, I'm guessing you don't trade all $2000 into a single etf.  The more etfs you trade the more trading more infrequently would be an advantage.  You can redo the above calculations spliting the amount across more etfs and including the added trading costs to get a feel for what is best.  You can also rotate as @Jason suggests but that can leave you unbalanced temporarily if not done carefully.  A second option would be to find a discount broker that allows you to trade the etfs you are interested in for free.  This is not always possible but often will be for those investing in index funds.  For instance I trade every month and have no brokerage costs. Dollar cost averaging and value averaging are for people investing a single large amount instead of regular monthly amounts.  Unless the initial amount is much much larger than the monthly amounts this is probably not worth considering. Edit: Hopefully the above edits will clarify that I was comparing the costs (including the forgone returns) of trading every 3 months vs trading every month. "What do you mean by ""handful"" and ""VERY well-funded""?  There are a plenty of HFT shops out there that do just fine.  But what zenwarrior said before about the effect of fund size is especially true for HFT, since market capacity is usually the limiting factor when making trades." Though a fan of ETFs (esp. high volume commission-free ones) recently a single, new fund VQT appeared on my radar of interest.  It's based on dynamic hedging that has sort of build-in diversification and adapts to the market climate, pulling in and out varying amounts from cash, the S&P 500 and volatility futures based on VIX. I've been Long VQT and it's followed the S&P500 during good times, though not at far, but crucially disconnected with much milder losses when the general market was nose diving.  You can lookup and compare to SPY at http://finance.google.com Not trying to give investment advice, in case that upsets some rules. See http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/04/30/why-the-sec-should-look-at-levered-etfs/?dlvrit=60132, http://symmetricinfo.org/2011/04/are-investors-in-levered-short-treasury-etfs-a-disaster-waiting-to-happen-pt1/, and the articles linked from it: The issue with holding a levered ETF past 1 day is that investors expose themselves to path dependency in the underlying.... The reason for the difference in payouts comes from the fact that the manager of the levered ETF promises you a multiple of the daily returns of the underlying. To be able to promise you these daily returns, the ETF manager has to buy/sell some of the underlying every day to position himself to have a constant leverage ratio the next day. The short video below explains this process in detail for a 2x long ETF, but the same result holds for a 2x short ETF: the manager has to buy more of the underlying on a day when the underlying increases in value and sell more of the underlying when the underlying goes down in value . "Are you talking long-term institutional or retail investors? Long-term *retail* investors look for *orderly markets*, the antithesis of HFT business models, which have a direct correlation between market volatility and profits. To a lesser extent, some ""dumb money""/""muppet"" institutionals do as well. HFT firms tout they supply liquidity into markets, when in fact the opposite is true.  Yes, HFTs supply liquidity, *but only when the liquidity's benefits runs in their direction*. That is, they are applying the part of the liquidity definition that mentions ""high trading activity"", and conveniently ignoring the part that simultaneously requires ""*easily* buying *or* selling an asset"".  If HFT's are the new exchange floor, then they need to be formalized as such, *and become bound to market maker responsibilities*. If they are actually supplying liquidity, like real Designated Market Makers in the NYSE for example, they become responsible to supply a specified liquidity for specified ticker symbols in exchange for their informational advantage on those tickers. The indisputable fact is that HFT cannot exist at their current profit levels without the information advantage they gain with preferential access to tick-by-tick data unavailable to investors who cannot afford the exchange fees ($1M per exchange 10 years ago, more now). Restrict the entire market, including HFTs, to only second-by-second price data without the tick-by-tick depth, and they won't do so well.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking HFTs *per se*; I think they are a marvelous development, so long as they really do ""supply liquidity"". Right now, they aren't doing so, and especially in an orderly manner. If you want retail investors to keep out of the water as they are doing now, by all means let HFT (and regulatory capture, and a whole host of other financial service industry ills) run as they are. There are arguments to be made about ""only let the professionals play the market"", where there is no role for retail and anyone who doesn't know how to play the long-term investment game needs to get out of the kitchen. But if you are making such an argument, come out and say so." You are correct about the first two questions.  At the time it was last measured those were the percent invested in the Basic Materials sector for the ETF and its benchmark.  Note, this ETF will be significantly different from its benchmark as it is an equal-weight index rather than the more common capitalization-weighted index.  Meaning that this ETF could have materially different performance from its benchmark. The third column is the average sector weights of all the ETFs in Morningstar's Large Blend category.  These are ETFs that generally invest in a broad collection of large U.S. stocks and (weighted?) average of all of them will be generally fairly close to the benchmark. No ETN or ETF yet. There are beta funds, that aim to track the market.  What's really needed is a liquid market for cat risk trading/transfer, enabling users to buy protection, or take the other side.  You can write cat swaps, so derivative forms, including ILW's or with parametric triggers. But these aren't liquid at all yet.  Cat bonds are most liquid, but it dries up pretty quickly when events threaten as there's no true hedging market yet. By exploiting institutional investors, HFT does hurt small investors. People with pension, mutual, and index funds get smaller returns. Endowment funds are also going to get hurt which hurts hospitals, schools, charities, and other institutions that work for the public good.  I agree with you though. At this point we would likely be just arguing semantics. If you are looking at long-term investments then you can look to Dheer's answer and see that it doesn't matter whether the money is large or small, the return will be the same.  When it comes to shorter-term investments, it can actually pay to be a smaller investor. Consider a stock that may not be trading in high volume. If I want to take a position for 2,000 shares, I can probably buy it quite quickly without moving the market considerably.  If I was managing your hypothetical portfolio opening a position for 1,000,000 shares, it can cause the price to go up significantly because I have to execute the order very carefully in order to not tip my hand to the market that I want a million shares.  Algorithmic traders will see the volume increasing on those shares and will raise their asking price. High speed traders and market makers will also cause a lot of purchasing overhead. Then later when it comes time to sell, I will lose a percentage to the price drop as I start flooding the market with available shares. Fair enough. I would imagine the ETF could get a better option pricing if that were the case, plus liquidity and counterpart risk concerns but your point is well taken. Serves me right to shoot my mouth off on something I do not do (short).  Speaking of which, do you do a lot of shorting? Cover positions or speculation? "Can you easily stomach the risk of higher volatility that could come with smaller stocks? How certain are you that the funds wouldn't have any asset bloat that could cause them to become large-cap funds for holding to their winners? If having your 401(k) balance get chopped in half over a year doesn't give you any pause or hesitation, then you have greater risk tolerance than a lot of people but this is one of those things where living through it could be interesting. While I wouldn't be against the advice, I would consider caution on whether or not the next 40 years will be exactly like the averages of the past or not. In response to the comments: You didn't state the funds so I how I do know you meant index funds specifically? Look at ""Fidelity Low-Priced Stock"" for a fund that has bloated up in a sense. Could this happen with small-cap funds? Possibly but this is something to note. If you are just starting to invest now, it is easy to say, ""I'll stay the course,"" and then when things get choppy you may not be as strong as you thought. This is just a warning as I'm not sure you get my meaning here. Imagine that some women may think when having a child, ""I don't need any drugs,"" and then the pain comes and an epidural is demanded because of the different between the hypothetical and the real version. While you may think, ""I'll just turn the cheek if you punch me,"" if I actually just did it out of the blue, how sure are you of not swearing at me for doing it? Really stop and think about this for a moment rather than give an answer that may or may not what you'd really do when the fecal matter hits the oscillator. Couldn't you just look at what stocks did the best in the last 10 years and just buy those companies? Think carefully about what strategy are you using and why or else you could get tossed around as more than a few things were supposed to be the ""sure thing"" that turned out to be incorrect like the Dream Team of Long-term Capital Management, the banks that were too big to fail, the Japanese taking over in the late 1980s, etc. There are more than a few times where things started looking one way and ended up quite differently though I wonder if you are aware of this performance chasing that some will do." "Is option trading permitted in the account? Most 401(k) do not permit this. 1 - it means none traded today. 2 - there are 50 outstanding contracts. Each one has a guy who is long and a guy who is short.  3 - not really, it might depend on the stock.  4 - no. With commissions so low, and the inherent leverage of options, one contract reflecting 100 shares of the underlying stock, the minimum is what you can sleep soundly with.  5 - because GLD does not reflect precisely 1/10 oz of gold's price. If you look at the prospectus, it reads ""The investment objective of the Trust is for the Shares to reflect the performance of the price of gold bullion, less the Trust’s expenses."" Since there are no dividends to take expenses from, the GLD price will erode by .4% each year compared to the price of 1/10oz gold." Hedging - You have an investment and are worried that the price might drop in the near future. You don't want to sell as this will realise a capital gain for which you may have to pay capital gains tax. So instead you make an investment in another instrument (sometimes called insurance) to offset falls in your investment.  An example may be that you own shares in XYZ. You feel the price has risen sharply over the last month and is due for a steep fall. So you buy some put option over XYZ. You pay a small premium and if the price of XYZ falls you will lose money on the shares but will make money on the put option, thus limiting your losses. If the price continues to go up you will only lose the premium you paid for the option (very similar to an insurance policy). Diversification - This is when you may have say $100,000 to invest and spread your investments over a portfolio of shares, some units in a property fund and some bonds. So you are spreading your risks and returns over a range of products. The idea is if one stock or one sector goes down, you will not lose a large portion of your investment, as it is unlikely that all the different sectors will all go down at the same time.