No-fee trading platforms can save money in other ways

Bid/ask spreads fall as volume rises

Jan 18, 2017 @ 12:13 pm

By John Waggoner

Most unintended consequences are a bad thing.

But sometimes, unintended consequences are good. Case in point: Exchange-traded funds that trade on commission-free platforms have lower bid/ask spreads than those that trade with commissions.

A study by Lara Crigger on found that ETFs sold without trading commissions showed higher average trading volumes than those sold with commissions. She looked at funds that traded in five traditionally illiquid markets: emerging market bonds, emerging market equities, U.S. small-cap equities, municipal bonds and U.S. real estate. Leveraged and inverse funds were excluded.

In all five categories, the difference in mean volume was large indeed: $240.97 million for real estate funds that traded commission-free, for example, vs. $10.93 million for those that traded with commission.

And in all five categories, the bid/asked spread was dramatically lower for funds that traded commission-free. In real estate funds that traded for commission, for example, the mean bid/asked spread was 0.26%, vs. 0.07% for those that traded commission-free. For emerging markets bond funds, the mean spread for funds that trade with a commission was 0.80%, vs. 0.14% for those that don't trade with commission.

“Furthermore, it also appears that no-fee funds tend to accrue greater assets than ETFs carrying commissions,” Ms. Crigger writes. “The average assets under management (AUM) for the 51 no-fee ETFs in our sample set was $3.87 billion, while the average AUM for the 102 commission-only ETFs was just $477 million.”

Should advisers care? “Yes, even if you're more of a buy-and-hold investor than a trader,” said Todd Rosenbluth, director of ETF and mutual fund research at CFRA. “If the spread is three or five cents a trade, that offsets a three- or five-cent expense ratio savings. Advisers should be conscious of the spread and not just aim for the cheapest or most frequently traded ETF.”

Be aware, however, that no-fee platforms are, to some extent, a marketing tool. Some very large (and low-cost) ETFs trade with commission, and some ETFs of modest assets are on the no-fee platofrms. Just because you save money on a trade doesn't mean you should sacrifice cost for your client's asset allocation, Mr. Rosenbluth said. “You should look for the best combination of costs and exposure.”


What do you think?

View comments

Recommended for you

Featured video


How men and women think differently about philanthropy

Women are more emotionally connected to their gifts, and want to donate time as well, says special projects editor Liz Skinner.

Latest news & opinion

Cetera brokers may go elsewhere with no stay bonuses on horizon

Some may feel spurned and leave, while others will simply shrug off latest slight and stay.

Fidelity backs away from being 'point in time' fiduciary for 401(k) plans

Some advisers think this indicates other providers will pivot in light of DOL fiduciary rule's death.

Morgan Stanley CEO is happy that brokers are staying put

Firm has seen little attrition since it dumped the broker protocol last fall, Gorman says.

Bills to reform adviser regulation, increase sophisticated investors and protect seniors pass House

Measures included in package of 32 bipartisan bills meant to ease rules, spur investment

Genstar Capital buys majority stake in Cetera Financial Group

The private-equity firm has previously invested in such companies as Mercer Advisors and AssetMark.


Hi! Glad you're here and we hope you like all the great work we do here at InvestmentNews. But what we do is expensive and is funded in part by our sponsors. So won't you show our sponsors a little love by whitelisting It'll help us continue to serve you.

Yes, show me how to whitelist

Ad blocker detected. Please whitelist us or give premium a try.


Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print