We look at the factors that may be causing BlackRock’s ETF to trade at a premium consistently higher than competitor ETFs.
Net inflows into the spot complex ramped this week as GBTC outflows continue, albeit at lower levels.
We saw the first casualty of the ETF wars as futures-based US ETFs and Canadian spot ETFs combine for nearly $600M of outflows.
BlackRock Continues to Trade at a Premium to NAV
Now that the initial excitement has settled, we can take a closer look at the spot ETF complex, which has been making waves since its launch almost a month ago. While most of the post-launch issues have been resolved, there is one intriguing aspect that still stands out - the consistent price premium of BlackRock's iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) to its net asset value (NAV).
Last week, we brought attention to the overall trend of ETF prices narrowing towards their NAV since the launch on January 11th. This week, we dive deeper into that trend, to bring this observation about IBIT’s premium to NAV. This premium has been around 20 bps (0.2%) since finding a floor about two weeks after launch.
The graph below illustrates the daily NAV dynamics. IBIT continues to trade at a premium to its NAV, consistently above any other competing spot ETF. GBTC, which appears to have the narrowest spread to NAV, traded at a discount as it has only been seeing outflows whereas the other fund has only seen inflows. Note: this is intraday data sampled at 15-minute intervals and averaged over the trailing hour. It differs from close price relative to NAV, which tends to jump around.
Factors Likely Affecting the Premium
To fully understand the reasons behind the existence of this premium, we must delve into the inner workings of ETFs. ETFs closely follow the Net Asset Value (NAV) due to the process of arbitrage. Market makers (MM) and Authorized Participants (AP) have the ability to purchase or sell ETF shares on the secondary market and exchange them for the underlying basket of assets. The profit for MM or AP is determined by the difference between the trading value of shares and the NAV of the portfolio.
In the case of IBIT, which has only experienced net inflows, arbitrageurs would short (sell) the ETF shares that are trading at a premium to NAV and concurrently ask the ETF sponsor (via an AP) to create shares in exchange for cash as well as buy the underlying bitcoin. The ETF sponsor would instruct a bitcoin trading entity, called a Liquidity Provider (LP) or Bitcoin Trading Counterparty in regulatory filings, to purchase the corresponding bitcoins, which would be delivered to the trust's (ETF) custody account in exchange for cash which will be sent to the LP for the purchase.
The arbitrageur would receive shares from the ETF sponsor (via the AP), effectively covering their short position and liquidate their bitcoin hedge.
Spot Transaction Fees Likely the Reason
The reason why this premium continues to persist, despite the existence of 0.2% arbitrage profits, is likely due to factors inherent within the functioning of IBIT. Specifically, trading costs on the spot leg of the transaction likely pose a significant friction. Our hypothesis is that these trading fees incurred on the spot side, which amount to approximately 0.2% of the notional value of created shares, prevent arbitrageurs from closing the gap further with NAV.
It is our understanding that Coinbase serves as the sole Bitcoin Trading Party for IBIT, responsible for acquiring bitcoin for the fund. It is likely that Coinbase charges an agency fee for the notional amount of bitcoin it acquires. Why would BlackRock (presumably) choose to work with only one Liquidity Provider while competitors named multiple providers? It is conceivable that during their due diligence process, BlackRock was only comfortable with Coinbase as a counterparty for spot trading. Furthermore, Coinbase operates one of the major exchanges that constitutes the underlying index for IBIT’s NAV, the CME CF Benchmarks Reference Rate - NY Variant, which may grant it an advantage in replicating the underlying index.
So why do certain ETFs have exclusive Liquidity Provider relationships with Coinbase but do not consistently trade at premiums to NAV? Our guess is that these funds may have LPs not named in the registration statements filed prior to launch. Either that or they have different economic arrangements with Coinbase. Either way, if our understanding is correct, this premium could be persistent until BlackRock's arrangement with Coinbase changes or more LPs are added.
Two Funds Break $3B in AUM as Inflows Ramp Up
ETF data this week shows a significant net inflow in the spot ETF complex with a big day on Thursday. This comes at GBTC outflows, which now have broken $6.3B, continue to slowdown, but are still running at about $100M per day.
While we have written at length about the outflows from GBTC, two other possible “donors” to the spot ETF challengers in the US are the futures-based ETFs, primarily ProShares Bitcoin Strategy (BITO) ETF, and the Canadian spot ETF complex. We saw our first casualty of the ETF wars recently with the liquidation and closure of the VanEck Bitcoin Strategy ETF (XBTF), a futures-based ETF with only about $38M in AUM at the time of closure. But the rest of futures ETF complex has seen about $329M of cumulative daily fund flows (not including the $38M XBTF liquidation). The Canadian spot ETFs, which have been around for nearly 3 years now, could have been accessed by US-based investors absent a similar offering in the US. Since the launch of spot ETFs in the US, Canadian ETFs have seen a cumulative outflow of $298M USD, which has potentially flowed into US spot ETFs.
Not much has changed in the spot ETF leaderboard, aside from AUM balances. BlackRock and Fidelity continue to be the top challengers, each now both well above $3B in AUM.
Market Update
Bitcoin roared back this week as a favorable risk asset backdrop and renewed ETF inflows powered spot through the $47K level. Bitcoin is now back to the price levels seen at the peak of the ETF hype, right at the launch. This is a strong bounce back for the asset, which fell over 20% on the wake of the launch, which was underwhelming at the onset. However, with over $2.2B of net inflows since launch, and money continuing to come into the spot ETF complex, it’s clear that this ETF trend is continuing. As mentioned, risk assets fared well this week, with the S&P 500 temporarily breaking 5K and ending the week up 1.9%. The Nasdaq Composite rose 2.8% as tech and growth stocks continue to outperform. Bonds struggled on the week, with investment grade corporate bonds down 2.1%, high yield corporate bonds down 0.2%, and long-term US Treasuries down 4.3%. Gold fell 1.0% while oil rallied 3.3%.
You are receiving this email because you signed up to receive our weekly research at www.nydig.com
This communication has been prepared solely for informational purposes and does not represent investment advice or provide an opinion regarding the fairness of any transaction to any and all parties nor does it constitute an offer, solicitation or a recommendation to buy or sell any particular security or instrument or to adopt any investment strategy. Charts and graphs provided herein are for illustrative purposes only. This communication does not represent valuation judgments with respect to any financial instrument, issuer, security or sector that may be described or referenced herein and does not represent a formal or official view of New York Digital Investment Group or its affiliates (collectively NYDIG).
It should not be assumed that NYDIG will make investment recommendations in the future that are consistent with the views expressed herein, or use any or all of the techniques or methods of analysis described herein. NYDIG may have positions (long or short) or engage in securities transactions that are not consistent with the information and views expressed in this communication.
The information provided herein is valid only for the purpose stated herein and as of the date hereof (or such other date as may be indicated herein) and no undertaking has been made to update the information, which may be superseded by subsequent market events or for other reasons. The information in this communication may contain forward-looking statements regarding future events, targets or expectations. NYDIG neither assumes any duty to nor undertakes to update any forward-looking statements. There is no assurance that any forward-looking events or targets will be achieved, and actual outcomes may be significantly different from those shown herein. The information in this communication, including statements concerning financial market trends, is based on current market conditions, which will fluctuate and may be superseded by subsequent market events or for other reasons.
Information furnished by others, upon which all or portions of this communication are based, are from sources believed to be reliable. However, NYDIG makes no representation as to the accuracy, adequacy or completeness of such information and has accepted the information without further verification. No warranty is given as to the accuracy, adequacy or completeness of such information. No responsibility is taken for changes in market conditions or laws or regulations and no obligation is assumed to revise this communication to reflect changes, events or conditions that occur subsequent to the date hereof.
Nothing contained herein constitutes investment, legal, tax or other advice nor is it to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Legal advice can only be provided by legal counsel. NYDIG shall have no liability to any third party in respect of this communication or any actions taken or decisions made as a consequence of the information set forth herein. By accepting this communication, the recipient acknowledges its understanding and acceptance of the foregoing terms.
