Connect with us

Finance

Wall Street wants to privatize more of your money in market correction

Published

on

Big swing and a big miss? How options and private credit ETFs are changing the market.

From America’s largest bank to its biggest asset manager, Wall Street investment strategies once reserved for private banking clients are increasingly being offered to Main Street investors.

In the midst of a market correction and ongoing uncertainty about the outlook for U.S. stocks and the global economy, JPMorgan Chase and BlackRock are among major players in the ETF space making bets that private strategies will continue to see greater adoption. That includes private credit as a mainstream bond portfolio holding, as well as equity income strategies that involved more complicated trading than traditional dividend equity funds.

“Across our business we are looking at an incredible amount of demand from ETF investors who are looking for access to alternative investment funds, and we find managers are looking to push more into that wealth space to tap into growth to meet investors where they are,” Ben Slavin, managing director and global head of BNY Mellon ETF business, told CNBC’s Bob Pisani on last week’s “ETF Edge” from the Exchange ETF Conference in Las Vegas.

“While mutual funds still make a ton of sense for retirement accounts, interval funds have been really successful in allowing for access to private credit,” Jay Jacobs, head of BlackRock’s US Thematic and Active ETF business, told Pisani from the conference. He was referring to a form of closed-end fund that has existed for a long time, and in which investors can access private credit, albeit with less liquidity than in an ETF.

BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager and biggest issuer of ETFs, acquired a provider of alternative investments research last year, Preqin, and Jacobs said the firm plans “more indexing of private investments.”

The SEC recently approved the first private credit ETF, though not without some controversy.

Lack of liquidity in private markets is a key issue for ETFs to solve as they attempt to grow the alternative investment side of the business. These kinds of funds, like Van Eck’s BDC Income ETF — which invests in business development companies that make private loans to small and mid-sized companies — have traditionally been illiquid but because of innovation in the ETF industry, more people are gaining access. 

Another trend that is catching on within the ETF market amid the current volatility in stocks is active ETFs designed to offer downside protection while capitalizing on income gained from selling call options. ETFs including the JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF (JEPI) and JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF (JEPQ) use this approach.

Goldman Sachs Asset Management’s Bryon Lake said on a recent “ETF Edge” — he was among the leaders of the JPMorgan ETF business when JEPI was created and now runs a similar strategy at Goldman — “You sell that call, you get the premium for that, and then you can pay that out as income. As we look at this space, that’s one category that’s been evergreen for investors. A lot of investors are looking for income on a consistent basis.”

Stock Chart IconStock chart icon

hide content

Funds like JEPI give investors exposure to sell call strategies.

“There’s multiple ways to win with a strategy like this, as you can remain invested in the equity side and get the return, and capture that premium income which adds to a growing need and growing desire for income across all asset classes, and that’s a really effective way to stay in the market,” Travis Spence, head of JPMorgan Asset Management’s global ETFs business, said on last week’s “ETF Edge.”

The expense ratio on the JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF is 0.35 percent, with a 7.2 percent dividend. The firm also offers the JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF with the same expense ratio, but with a dividend yield right now of 10.6 percent. “Its an effective trade off in a choppy market,” Spence said.

Thirty years ago, an investor would have had to be a high-end client of a Wall Street private bank that would customize a portfolio in order to participate in the options fund strategy, said Ben Johnson, Morningstar’s head of client solutions and asset management. But now, “ETFs make it easier and cheaper to implement these strategies,” he said.

Buffer ETFs run by Goldman and others, which cap both market upside and downside as a way to mitigate volatility in returns, are also gaining in popularity.

“Clearly, when you look at the flows, there is demand for these products,” Slavin said. “Until recently, it was not really well known,” he added.

The premium income and buffer ETFs can offer investors a way to stay in the market rather than run from it. But in a market that has seen steep declines of late, Jacobs says these strategies also offer a way for investors to get into the market with less fear of quickly losing money. That’s an important point, he said, with trillions of dollars sitting in money market accounts. “A lot of investors are using buffered products to step out of cash and into the market,” he said. “No one wants to be the one who held cash for five years and just put their money into the market and watched it sell off 10%.”

After watching the S&P 500 already lose more than 10% of its value in a three-week period this month, ETF strategies designed to offer protection are getting more attention from advisors and their clients. But Johnson says investors should remember that there is nothing “new” about these investment strategies that have been used on Wall Street for decades, and investors need to weigh both the pros and cons of wrapping them in an ETF structure.

Private credit ETFs are a good example, he said, since interval funds that trade under ticker symbols are already available, albeit in a less liquid trading format. ETFs have structural advantages to offer — an inexpensive way to gain access to what have long been “really expensive, super illiquid investments,” he said. But on the other side, to be approved by the SEC, the ETFs need to “water down a lot of what investors want,” he added.

Nevertheless, Johnson thinks it may just be a matter of time before private credit ETFs are standard. “I think back to bank loans, circa 2011,” he said, when many “balked at ever wrapping it in an ETF. But now that seems fairly common place.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Finance

Stocks making the biggest moves midday: TSLA, DJT, AMZN, RIVN

Published

on

Continue Reading

Finance

Stocks making the biggest moves premarket: Tesla, Newsmax, nCino and more

Published

on

These are the stocks posting the largest moves in premarket trading.

Continue Reading

Finance

Tariffs may raise much less than White House projects, economists say

Published

on

President Donald Trump speaks before signing executive orders in the Oval Office on March 6, 2025.

Alex Wong | Getty Images

President Donald Trump says that tariffs will make the U.S. “rich.” But those riches will likely be far less than the White House expects, economists said.

The ultimate sum could have big ramifications for the U.S. economy, the nation’s debt and legislative negotiations over a tax-cut package, economists said.

White House trade adviser Peter Navarro on Sunday estimated tariffs would raise about $600 billion a year and $6 trillion over a decade. Auto tariffs would add another $100 billion a year, he said on “Fox News Sunday.”

Navarro made the projection as the U.S. plans to announce more tariffs against U.S. trading partners on Wednesday.

Economists expect the Trump administration’s tariff policy would generate a much lower amount of revenue than Navarro claims. Some project the total revenue would be less than half.

Roughly $600 billion to $700 billion a year “is not even in the realm of possibility,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s. “If you get to $100 billion to $200 billion, you’ll be pretty lucky.”

The White House declined to respond to a request for comment from CNBC about tariff revenue.

The ‘mental math’ behind tariff revenue

There are big question marks over the scope of the tariffs, including details like amount, duration, and products and countries affected — all of which have a significant bearing on the revenue total.

The White House is considering a 20% tariff on most imports, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday. President Trump floated this idea on the campaign trail. The Trump administration may ultimately opt for a different policy, like country-by-country tariffs based on each nation’s respective trade and non-trade barriers.

But a 20% tariff rate seems to align with Navarro’s revenue projections, economists said.

The U.S. imported about $3.3 trillion of goods in 2024. Applying a 20% tariff rate to all these imports would yield about $660 billion of annual revenue.

“That is almost certainly the mental math Peter Navarro is doing — and that mental math skips some crucial steps,” said Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Yale Budget Lab and former chief economist at the White House Council of Economic Advisers during the Biden administration.

Trade advisor to U.S. President Donald Trump Peter Navarro speaks to press outside of the White House on March 12, 2025 in Washington, DC. 

Kayla Bartkowski | Getty Images

That’s because an accurate revenue estimate must account for the many economic impacts of tariffs in the U.S. and around the world, economists said. Those effects combine to reduce revenue, they said.

A 20% broad tariff would raise about $250 billion a year (or $2.5 trillion over a decade) when taking those effects into account, according to Tedeschi, citing a Yale Budget Lab analysis published Monday.  

There are ways to raise larger sums — but they would involve higher tariff rates, economists said. For example, a 50% across-the-board tariff would raise about $780 billion per year, according to economists at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Even that is an optimistic assessment: It doesn’t account for lower U.S. economic growth due to retaliation or the negative growth effects from the tariffs themselves, they wrote.

Why revenue would be lower than expected

Tariffs generally raise prices for consumers. A 20% broad tariff would cost the average consumer $3,400 to $4,200 a year, according to the Yale Budget Lab.

Consumers would naturally buy fewer imported goods if they cost more, economists said. Lower demand means fewer imports and less tariff revenue from those imports, they said.

Tariffs are also expected to trigger “reduced economic activity,” said Robert McClelland, senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

More from Personal Finance:
Economists say ‘value-added taxes’ aren’t a trade barrier
Tariffs are ‘lose-lose’ for U.S. jobs and industry
Why uncertainty makes the stock market go haywire

For example, U.S. companies that don’t pass tariff costs on to consumers via higher prices would likely see profits suffer (and their income taxes fall), economists said. Consumers might pull back on spending, further denting company profits and tax revenues, economists said. Companies that take a financial hit might lay off workers, they said.

Foreign nations are also expected to retaliate with their own tariffs on U.S. products, which would hurt companies that export products abroad. Other nations may experience an economic downturn, further reducing demand for U.S. products.

Tariffs could be a major rewiring of the domestic and global economy, says Mohamed El-Erian

“If you get a 20% tariff rate, you’re going to get a rip-roaring recession, and that will undermine your fiscal situation,” Zandi said.

There’s also likely to be a certain level of non-compliance with tariff policy, and carve-outs for certain countries, industries or products, economists said. For instance, when the White House levied tariffs on China in February, it indefinitely exempted “de minimis” imports valued at $800 or less.

The Trump administration might also funnel some tariff revenue to paying certain parties aggrieved by a trade war, economists said.

President Trump did that in his first term: The government sent $61 billion in “relief” payments to American farmers who faced retaliatory tariffs, which was nearly all (92%) of the tariff revenue on Chinese goods from 2018 to 2020, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

The tariffs will also likely have a short life span, diluting their potential revenue impact, economists said. They’re being issued by executive order and could be undone easily, whether by President Trump or a future president, they said.

“There’s zero probability these tariffs will last for 10 years,” Zandi said. “If they last until next year I’d be very surprised.”

Why this matters

The Trump administration has signaled that tariffs “will be one of the top-tier ways they’ll try to offset the cost” of passing a package of tax cuts, Tedeschi said.

Extending a 2017 tax cut law signed by President Trump would cost $4.5 trillion over a decade, according to the Tax Foundation. Trump has also called for other tax breaks like no taxes on tips, overtime pay or Social Security benefits, and a tax deduction for auto loan interest for American made cars.

If tariffs don’t cover the full cost of such a package, then Republican lawmakers would have to find cuts elsewhere or increase the nation’s debt, economists said.

Continue Reading

Trending