For 99% of ETFs, liquidity and bid-ask spreads are not based on the ETF's own trading activity. Instead, they reflect the cost for a market maker to buy or sell the underlying basket of securities. An ETF holding liquid stocks can trade billions with tight spreads, even if the ETF itself is rarely traded.
Related Insights
Official liquidity measures like Fed balance sheet levels are too slow to be tradable. A better approach is to monitor the symptoms of liquidity conditions in real-time market data. Indicators like SOFR spreads, commercial paper spreads, and unusual yield curve shapes reveal the health of private credit creation.
Today's market structure, dominated by High-Frequency Trading (HFT) firms, is inherently fragile. HFTs provide liquidity during calm periods but are incentivized to withdraw it during stress, creating "liquidity voids." This amplifies price dislocations and increases systemic risk, making large-cap concentration more dangerous than it appears.
Contrary to intuition, even a fully systematic, rules-based investment strategy benefits from an active ETF structure. This approach avoids third-party index licensing fees and provides crucial flexibility to delay rebalancing during volatile market events, a cumbersome process for index-based funds.
The minimum seed capital for an ETF has jumped from $5M to over $25M, not due to rising operational costs, but to convey credibility. A substantial launch amount signals to the market that the fund can sustain itself for the 3-5 years necessary to build a track record and attract investors.
The rise of electronic and portfolio trading has made public credit markets as liquid as equity markets. This 'equitification' has compressed spreads by eliminating the historical illiquidity premium, forcing investors into private markets like private credit to find comparable yield.
Kalshi uses market makers to solve the cold-start problem and bootstrap liquidity for new contracts. However, as a market becomes more successful and organic volume grows, the percentage of market maker participation intentionally decreases. Their role is to ignite the flywheel, not to be the engine itself.
A major structural disadvantage of ETFs is the inability to close the fund to new capital. Unlike mutual funds or SMAs, an ETF cannot stop inflows. This makes the structure inappropriate for strategies with limited capacity, such as those focused on micro-cap stocks, where large inflows would harm performance.
Rather than retreating from popular but crowded frontier market trades, bullish investors are expanding their search for alpha. They are moving further down the liquidity spectrum to find new, less-trafficked opportunities, signaling a deepening commitment to the asset class despite positioning concerns.
While Exchange-Traded Products (ETPs) make crypto accessible, they present a liquidity paradox. The underlying spot crypto markets are actually more liquid and trade 24/7 globally, whereas ETFs are confined to standard market hours—a crucial difference for active traders.
The main barrier to institutional adoption of prediction markets for hedging is not a lack of interest, but insufficient liquidity. Large hedge funds and corporations need to be able to place trades in the tens of millions of dollars for it to be worthwhile, a scale Kalshi's markets have yet to consistently reach.