ETFs

PIMCO Logo

PIMCO Makes Changes to BOND

Last week PIMCO announced changes (PDF) to its flagship Total Return active ETF, BOND. The gist: different investment focus to meet changing investor needs, new management team, same ticker.

I had a quick comment in the Ignites story (subscription required) on the change in which another observer stated that the appropriate move for PIMCO in this case is to launch another product, not tweak BOND. I find the move interesting enough that I thought to cover a few more things. So, three points each on two topics:

What’s Important About the Context Surrounding the Change?

  1. BOND is roughly $2 billion in assets. Not to minimize those assets, but they’re small relative to the whole of the Total Return strategy (75B+ in the mutual fund alone) and the firm’s $1.5 trillion in AUM.
  2. In general, active ETFs have not taken off as some have hoped. It’s difficult to project that PIMCO’s changes to BOND put a significant short or mid-term influx of assets at risk.
  3. Positioning the move as being grounded in the changing needs of investors is (a) appealing given the nature of today’s bond market, and (b) credible given that PIMCO is altering a product that has performed well, not poorly.

So Why Might This be Worth Doing?

  1. The Total Return strategy has been on the defensive since the fallout from Bill Gross’s departure. At least for the ETF this move enables PIMCO to focus on client needs and the new (and strong) team as part of a more positive conversation.
  2. Transitioning an existing product avoids adding another active ETF into an already-crowded ETF market and one that (again) has not been overly conducive to active funds.
  3. The scale of the assets involved makes this a potentially-appealing learning exercise from a strategic standpoint. PIMCO can mine the implications of pivoting existing ETF offerings, recasting the messaging for Total Return, and the like. (I realize this is far-fetched but the move has me thinking about adopting the regular reinvention strategy of Chicago’s famous Next restaurant for an ETF.)

There are so many nuances to consider. Even the fact that the ticker symbol is unchanged has implications. After all, if people know only one thing about active ETFs, fixed income ETFs, and PIMCO ETFs, the BOND ticker is probably it. Will the ticker being the same undermine efforts to communicate the changes?

It will be interesting and fun to see how this ultimately plays out.

A To-Do List for Marketing Smart Beta

Sound familiar?

  • A new category of investment products emerges as an attractive alternative to long-established strategies
  • Asset managers flood the market with product to appeal to the retail (advisor/investor) market
  • AUM takes off, with highly-optimistic long-term growth projections

Five years ago this was the storyline for liquid alts. And while the story is far from complete and optimism remains in pockets, the last few years have taken some air out of this high-flying balloon.

  ft-alts-graph Source: Financial Times

The path of liquid alts comes to mind based on the explosion of attention, products, and assets in smart beta. An ETF.com survey showed that 99% of advisors expected to maintain or increase smart beta usage in 2016, and BlackRock recently projected smart beta AUM to nearly quadruple by 2020.

The industry has gotten off to a strong start in marketing smart beta to retail audiences. Education is a central element, and firms have made good progress:

  • Establishing ‘smart beta’ as a baseline term, then using proprietary terminology to support proprietary offerings
  • Utilizing similar nomenclature and definitions for key factors (e.g., value, momentum, low volatility, etc.)
  • Differentiating smart beta strategies in general from traditional active and passive

Of course there is a long way to go with marketing just one of the myriad factors that will impact the long-run success of the category. So what areas represent the next opportunities for improving the retail marketing of smart beta? I see three:

1. Providing Market Context

Once the definition of the underlying components of smart beta are understood, the next step lies in helping advisors and investors understand the context surrounding factor performance. This is an important topic in part because of how the outcomes associated with individual factors vary over time (i.e., market conditions).

invesco-chartSource: Invesco PowerShares

Much in the way we’ve seen asset managers map mutual funds to investor needs and desired outcomes, firms can begin to provide similar context on different factors and factor combinations (and therefore strategies). Even something as high-level as this table from BlackRock gives an advisor or investor a valuable anchor as they learn about smart beta.

blk-brochure-1Source: BlackRock

The need for context relates directly to the next messaging opportunity – implementation.

2. Addressing Implementation

Where some progress has been made in putting context around the different approaches to smart beta, firms have been less successful in communicating how smart beta should be integrated into existing portfolios (which is actually something often done well on the institutional side). With liquid alts, most firms started with a simple message that referenced:

  • Improving diversification (via assets not correlated with traditional stocks and bonds)
  • Targeting a specific (and modest) allocation

A straightforward analog with smart beta is largely missing, and some of the concepts used today are likely too complex for much of the retail market.

blk-brochure-2Source: BlackRock

Crafting a digestible, clear message on how to apply smart beta will help firms capitalize on the current wave of interest and assets.

3. Clarifying the Brand

I’ve touched on this before so won’t dwell on it here. And while it obviously doesn’t apply to every firm, the many established firms that have recently entered the ETF and smart beta space face a unique challenge in merging this effort with longstanding brand messaging.

As the lines between passive and active investing continue to blur, there’s an opportunity, or more frankly a need, for individual firms to recast how they want to position themselves in the minds of clients. Branding is a long-run consideration, but one that several firms have largely neglected (or deferred) so far.

[ banner image via Stephen Dann ]

Reflation

The Positioning Impact of Launching ETFs

Last week OppenheimerFunds rebranded the recently-purchased RevenueShares ETF lineup as the Oppenheimer Factor Weighted ETFs. Given that the firm is new to the smart beta ETF space, a simple question crossed my mind: how do they now introduce themselves as a firm?

Traditional (for lack of a better word) actively-managed, mutual fund-oriented firms face a number of important strategic marketing and positioning questions when entering the ETF space. But among the most fundamental is figuring out how to adjust the messaging of who they are and what they do.

In many cases there is an established, legacy messaging platform that emphasizes elements – active management, specific investment philosophy or process tenets – that fail to mesh seamlessly with the expanded product line. As a result the new ETFs appear to be more of an opportunistic “bolt-on” than something grounded in the core beliefs of the firm.

OppenheimerFunds’ illustrates one approach to trying to overcome this issue, namely via a tagline (The Right Way to Invest) and four key principles that focus primarily on themes that are vehicle and strategy agnostic. But there are several firms whose stories fail to match up with their newly-expanded offerings. They, and the anticipated entrants into the ETF universe, will need to reconsider how they primarily want to define themselves and communicate their capabilities to the market.

[ image courtesy of Tony Hall ]

The Most Overused Word in ETF Marketing

Innovation is the biggest cliche in ETF marketing.

This was reinforced for me yesterday after reading about the liquidation of 8 Global X ETFs. Having never checked out the Global X Web site, I went there and immediately encountered this:

We’ve been working with an emerging ETF provider on how to best position their product lineup, so I went back and reviewed notes on 6 other firms. Five of them prominently include innovation in their marketing messages:

  • As an innovator in exchange-traded funds…
  • …providing access to an innovative array of opportunities…
  • …provides innovative ways to enhance return potential…
  • …our track record of consistently creating innovative investment vehicles…
  • [firm] is an innovator in its field…

The definition of a cliche is something that has lost originality and impact through overuse. I believe that innovation has reached the point of having almost zero resonance with prospects and clients. It is a concept that everyone uses and tries to own, and therefore it has no power. Even when it might be factually true.

Now don’t get me started on solutions