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.
Suppose that the ETF is currently at a price of $100.  Suppose that the next day it moves up 10% (to a price of $110) and the following day it moves down 5% (to a price of $104.5).  Over these two days the ETF has had a net gain of 4.5% from its original price. The inverse ETF reverses the daily gains/losses of the base ETF.  Suppose for simplicity that the inverse ETF also starts out at a price of $100.  So on the first day it goes down 10% (to $90) and on the second day it goes up 5% (to $94.5).  Thus over the two days the inverse ETF has had a net loss of 5.5%. The specific dollar amounts do not matter here.  The result is that the ETF winds up at 110%*95% = 104.5% of its original price and the inverse ETF is at 90%*105% = 94.5% of its original price.  A similar example is given here. As suggested by your quote, this is due to compounding.  A gain of X% followed by a loss of Y% (compounded on the gain) is not in general the same as a loss of X% followed by a gain of Y% (compounded on the loss).  Or, more simply put, if something loses 10% of its value and then gains 10% of its new value, it will not return to its original value, because the 10% it gained was 10% of its decreased value, so it's not enough to bring it all the way back up.  Likewise if it gains 10% and then loses 10%, it will go slightly below its original value (since it lost 10% of its newly increased value). It can be zero or negative given the current market conditions. Any money parked with treasury bonds is 100% risk free. So if I have a large amount of USD, and need a safe place to keep, then in today's environment even the banks (large as well) are at risk. So if I park my money with some large bank and that bank goes bankrupt, my money is gone for good. After a long drawn bankruptcy procedure, I may get back all of it or some of it. Even if the bank does not go bankrupt, it may face liquidity crises and I may not be able to withdraw when I want.  Hence it's safer to keep it in Treasury bonds even though I may not gain any interest, or even lose a small amount of money. At least it will be very safe.   Today there are very few options for large investors (typically governments and institutional investors.) The Euro is facing uncertainty. The Yuan is still regulated. There is not enough gold to buy (or to store it.) Hence this leads towards the USD.  The very fact that USD is safe in today's environment is reflected in the Treasury rates. "Remember that in most news outlets journalists do not get to pick the titles of their articles.  That's up to the editor.  So even though the article was primarily about ETFs, the reporter made the mistake of including some tangential references to mutual funds.  The editor then saw that the article talked about ETFs and mutual funds and -- knowing even less about the subject matter than the reporter, but recognizing that more readers' eyeballs would be attracted to a headline about mutual funds than to a headline about ETFs -- went with the ""shocking"" headline about the former. In any case, as you already pointed out, ETFs need to know their value throughout the day, as do the investors in that ETF.  Even momentary outages of price sources can be disastrous. Although mutual funds do not generally make transactions throughout the day, and fund investors are not typically interested in the fund's NAV more than once per day, the fund managers don't just sit around all day doing nothing and then press a couple buttons before the market closes.  They do watch their NAV very closely during the day and think very carefully about which buttons to press at the end of the day.  If their source of stock price data goes offline, then they're impacted almost as severely as -- if less visibly than -- an ETF. Asking Yahoo for prices seems straightforward, but (1) you get what you pay for, and (2) these fund companies are built on massive automated infrastructures that expect to receive their data from a certain source in a certain way at a certain time.  (And they pay a lot of money in order to be able to expect that.)  It would be quite difficult to just feed in manual data, although in the end I suspect some of these companies did just that.  Either they fell back to a secondary data supplier, or they manually constructed datasets for their programs to consume." "This is an excellent question, one that I've pondered before as well. Here's how I've reconciled it in my mind. Why should we agree that a stock is worth anything? After all, if I purchase a share of said company, I own some small percentage of all of its assets, like land, capital equipment, accounts receivable, cash and securities holdings, etc., as others have pointed out. Notionally, that seems like it should be ""worth"" something.  However, that doesn't give me the right to lay claim to them at will, as I'm just a (very small) minority shareholder. The old adage says that ""something is only worth what someone is willing to pay you for it."" That share of stock doesn't actually give me any liquid control over the company's assets, so why should someone else be willing to pay me something for it? As you noted, one reason why a stock might be attractive to someone else is as a (potentially tax-advantaged) revenue stream via dividends. Especially in this low-interest-rate environment, this might well exceed that which I might obtain in the bond market. The payment of income to the investor is one way that a  stock might have some ""inherent value"" that is attractive to investors. As you asked, though, what if the stock doesn't pay dividends? As a small shareholder, what's in it for me? Without any dividend payments, there's no regular method of receiving my invested capital back, so why should I, or anyone else, be willing to purchase the stock to begin with? I can think of a couple reasons: Expectation of a future dividend. You may believe that at some point in the future, the company will begin to pay a dividend to investors. Dividends are paid as a percentage of a company's total profits, so it may make sense to purchase the stock now, while there is no dividend, banking on growth during the no-dividend period that will result in even higher capital returns later. This kind of skirts your question: a non-dividend-paying stock might be worth something because it might turn into a dividend-paying stock in the future. Expectation of a future acquisition. This addresses the original premise of my argument above. If I can't, as a small shareholder, directly access the assets of the company, why should I attribute any value to that small piece of ownership? Because some other entity might be willing to pay me for it in the future. In the event of an acquisition, I will receive either cash or another company's shares in compensation, which often results in a capital gain for me as a shareholder.  If I obtain a capital gain via cash as part of the deal, then this proves my point: the original, non-dividend-paying stock was worth something because some other entity decided to acquire the company, paying me more cash than I paid for my shares. They are willing to pay this price for the company because they can then reap its profits in the future. If I obtain a capital gain via stock in as part of the deal, then the process restarts in some sense. Maybe the new stock pays dividends. Otherwise, perhaps the new company will do something to make its stock worth more in the future, based on the same future expectations. The fact that ownership in a stock can hold such positive future expectations makes them ""worth something"" at any given time; if you purchase a stock and then want to sell it later, someone else is willing to purchase it from you so they can obtain the right to experience a positive capital return in the future. While stock valuation schemes will vary, both dividends and acquisition prices are related to a company's profits: This provides a connection between a company's profitability, expectations of future growth, and its stock price today, whether it currently pays dividends or not." "Thank you for the in-depth, detailed explanation; it's refreshing to see a concise, non verbose explanation on reddit.  I have a couple of questions, if that's alright.   Firstly, concerning mezzanine investors. Based on my understanding from Google, these people invest after a venture has been partially financed (can I use venture like that in a financial context, or does it refer specifically to venture capital?) so they would receive a smaller return, yes? Is mezzanine investing particularly profitable? It sounds like you'd need a wide portfolio.  Secondly, why is dilution so important further down the road? Is it to do with valuation?  Finally, at what point would a company aim to meet an IPO? Is it case specific, or is there a general understanding of the ""best time""?  Thank you so much for answering my questions." Equal-weight ETFs remove the large cap bias found in most popular indexes. What results behaves very much like a small-cap or mid-cap index. Observe RSP vs IJR over a 5 year period: IJR (iShares S&P SmallCap 600 ETF) vs RSP (Rydex S&P Equal Weight ETF)  I'm not sure if equal-weighting is worth the reduced efficiency. Mid-cap and small-cap funds have lower expenses (%0.20 for IJR vs %0.40 for RSP) and appear to do better over the long run. We don't know if that pattern will continue, but expense is one of the strongest long-term predictors of performance. From Dimson, Elroy, Paul Marsh, and Mike Staunton. Triumph of the Optimists: 101 Years of Global Investment Returns. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 2002: Disappointingly, the small firm effect has not proved the road to   great riches since soon after its discovery, the US size premium went   into reverse. This was repeated in the United Kingdom and virtually   all other markets around the world. Despite their disappointing performance in recent years, the very   long-run record of small-caps remains one of outperformance in both   the United States and the United Kingdom. Furthermore, mid- and   small-size companies are still an important asset class. Their   differential performance over long periods of history shows that there   is useful scope for investors to reduce risk by diversifying across   the “large” and the “small” capitalization sectors of the market.   Furthermore, given the pervasiveness of the size effect across the   entire size spectrum, it is important to all investors since the   size tilt of any portfolio will strongly influence its short- and   long-run performance. This holds true whether there is a size premium   or a size discount. The size effect has certainly proved persistent   and robust. What is at issue is whether we should continue to expect a   size premium over the longer haul. And accompanying charts:    And one chart from BlackRock: Longing the short ETF will give you better returns than shorting the long etf.  The reason is that as the price gets the smaller the absolute price change gets a lot smaller. So you would rather have upward price exposure than downward.  A good case is SPXU and UPRO