Low trading volume does not necessarily mean low liquidity. Here’s what actually determines how easy it is to buy or sell an exchange-traded fund. The post How Low trading volume does not necessarily mean low liquidity. Here’s what actually determines how easy it is to buy or sell an exchange-traded fund. The post How

How to spot and avoid illiquid ETFs

2026/03/03 14:16
9분 읽기
이 콘텐츠에 대한 의견이나 우려 사항이 있으시면 crypto.news@mexc.com으로 연락주시기 바랍니다

Today’s column addresses a persistent concern I continue to hear from readers: the liquidity of exchange-traded funds (ETFs) or, more specifically, the fear of owning an ETF that appears thinly traded.

The latest example came from a discussion I had with a friend about the BMO S&P/TSX 60 Index ETF (ZIU). I had highlighted it as a lower-cost alternative to the iShares S&P/TSX 60 Index ETF (XIU), noting that it charges a 0.15% management expense ratio (MER) versus 0.18% for its competitor. 

Since both track the same underlying index and hold the same exposure, the cheaper option seemed straightforward, right? 

The investor pointed to trading volume. On February 17, 2026, just minutes before market close, ZIU had traded roughly 2,700 units that day. XIU, by contrast, had traded more than 3 million shares. On the surface, that comparison makes XIU look far more liquid.

Illiquidity can be a genuine risk for ETF investors. With thinly traded ETFs, market orders may execute at unfavourable prices, and even limit orders may not fill quickly or at the desired level.

The problem is that daily trading volume is not what ultimately determines ETF liquidity. In fact, it is one of the most misunderstood aspects of ETF investing. Unlike individual stocks, ETFs have a unique structure that allows liquidity to extend beyond what you see trading on the screen.

Here’s an explanation of how ETF liquidity actually works behind the scenes, what truly matters when you are placing a trade, and the real risks, if any, of owning a lower-volume ETF.

What actually determines ETF liquidity?

My friend was not entirely wrong. Trading volume does matter. For most securities, especially individual stocks, daily volume is the primary indicator of liquidity. Higher volume generally means tighter spreads and easier execution.

With ETFs, however, trading volume is a secondary consideration. The most important determinant of ETF liquidity is the liquidity of the underlying securities the ETF holds.

When you buy or sell an ETF, you are transacting at the market price. The true value of the ETF, however, is measured by something called net asset value, or NAV. NAV is simply the total value of the ETF’s assets minus its liabilities, divided by the number of shares outstanding.

The ETF’s market price does not always equal its NAV. It can trade at a small premium or discount. What keeps those two values aligned is a mechanism called in-kind creation and redemption.

This process involves specialized institutions called authorized participants. These are typically large financial firms or trading houses that have formal agreements with the ETF issuer. (While some authorized participants may also act as market makers, the roles are not the same. Market makers provide continuous bids and offers on the exchange to facilitate day-to-day trading. Authorized participants operate in the primary market, where ETF units are created or redeemed. Their function is structural rather than transactional.)

If an ETF is trading above its NAV because demand is high, an authorized participant can step in, buy the underlying stocks that make up the ETF, deliver that basket to the ETF provider, and receive newly created ETF units in exchange. Those units can then be sold in the market at the higher price. The arbitrage profit may be small, but it is low-risk. At the same time, the additional supply of ETF units pushes the market price back toward NAV.

Tools

TFSA contribution room calculator

Find out how much you can contribute to your TFSA today using our calculator.

The reverse happens when an ETF trades below its NAV. Authorized participants can buy ETF units in the market, redeem them for the underlying securities, and sell those securities. That removes ETF supply from the market and pushes the price back up toward NAV.

Therefore, ETF liquidity ultimately depends on how efficiently in-kind creation and redemption can occur on the back end, and not on visible trading volume.

If the underlying securities are highly liquid, such as the large Canadian stocks of the S&P/TSX 60 index, authorized participants can easily assemble or unwind baskets. That means new ETF shares can be created or redeemed quickly to meet demand, even if the ETF itself only trades a few thousand share units on a given day.

In contrast, if an ETF holds illiquid assets with limited trading activity, the creation and redemption process becomes more costly and less efficient. That is when liquidity concerns become meaningful.

So, while daily ETF trading volume does have some impact, it is not the primary driver of liquidity. The true foundation is the liquidity of the underlying holdings and the ability of authorized participants to create and redeem ETF shares efficiently.

How do I know if an ETF is liquid?

We have established that you cannot simply glance at daily trading volume and declare an ETF liquid or illiquid. The real mechanism sits behind the scenes. So how can a retail investor assess liquidity in a practical way without digging into institutional plumbing? 

Think like an analyst and look at what the ETF actually owns. Liquidity ultimately flows from the underlying basket. While there are exceptions, certain asset types tend to be more liquid than others.

For example, stocks that trade on major exchanges such as the New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ, and Toronto Stock Exchange generally have deep, active markets. Liquidity typically improves as market capitalization increases and as companies are included in major indices. Thus, ETFs tracking benchmarks such as the S&P 500, NASDAQ 100, or S&P/TSX 60 rarely face structural liquidity concerns.

As you move down the market-capitalization spectrum into small caps, liquidity can deteriorate. The same applies to international equities, especially in emerging markets. If those securities are not available as American Depositary Receipts or Canadian Depositary Receipts, accessibility and liquidity can be further reduced.

Bond ETFs require a bit more nuance. Government bonds issued in Canada or the United States are generally among the most liquid fixed-income instruments in the world. There is a large institutional market supporting them; however, all bonds trade over the counter rather than on centralized exchanges. That means pricing is dealer-based and less transparent than equities.

As you move into corporate bonds, liquidity becomes more fragmented. Investment-grade corporate bonds rated BBB and above tend to be more liquid than junk bonds. Once you move into specialized credit products such as collateralized loan obligations, or CLOs, liquidity can thin out significantly. 

This approach requires more effort, but it gives you the clearest answer. If the underlying securities trade easily in large volumes, the ETF built on top of them is likely to be liquid as well.

The potential hazards of owning an illiquid ETF

If you determine that an ETF is less liquid, how does that actually affect you? In most cases, the impact shows up in the bid-ask spread.

The bid price is the highest price a buyer is currently willing to pay for the ETF. The ask price is the lowest price a seller is willing to accept. The difference between those two numbers is called the spread. It can be expressed in absolute dollar terms or as a percentage of the ETF’s price.

The spread matters because it represents an implicit transaction cost. It is separate from the MER. When you buy an ETF, you typically transact at or near the ask price. When you sell, you transact at or near the bid. That gap between the two is a cost you absorb, just like a commission.

For long-term investors who rarely trade, the impact may be small. For shorter-term traders, or those moving in and out of positions, a wider spread can materially drag on returns. Narrower spreads are generally better, and they tend to occur in more liquid ETFs.

Rankings

The best ETFs in Canada

Returning to our earlier example, consider XIU versus ZIU. On February 17, nine minutes before market close, XIU had a bid price of $48.38 and an ask price of $48.39. That is a one-cent spread. Relative to the price, that works out to roughly 0.02%.

ZIU, despite trading only a few thousand shares that day compared to XIU’s millions, showed a bid of $73.68 and an ask of $73.72. That four-cent spread equates to roughly 0.05%.

Both spreads are tight. Even though daily trading volume differed dramatically, the actual cost to enter or exit either ETF was minimal. The reason is simple. Both hold the same basket of highly liquid Canadian blue-chip stocks. Authorized participants can easily create or redeem units, keeping spreads narrow.

Now compare that with a more specialized ETF such as the CIICBC UBS S&P China 500 Index ETF (CHNA.B), which also trades on the TSX. This fund holds 500 Chinese companies, including mainland A-shares that are more difficult to access directly for foreigners.

At the same time of day, CHNA.B showed a bid of $29.21 and an ask of $29.31. That 10-cent spread translates to roughly 0.34%. That is meaningfully wider than the spreads observed for the TSX 60 ETFs.

The difference reflects the underlying holdings. Mainland-listed A-shares and certain offshore listings do not trade with the same depth or transparency as large-cap Canadian equities. As a result, the creation and redemption process is more complex, and market makers demand a wider cushion.

The key takeaway is that volume alone does not determine liquidity risk. The spread is what directly affects your returns. If spreads are consistently wide, especially during normal market conditions, that is a signal to proceed carefully and add it to your total cost of owning said ETF.

Newsletter

Get free MoneySense financial tips, news & advice in your inbox.

Read more about investing with ETFs:

  • Why Vanguard’s ETF aimed at retirees is currently cautious in its asset allocation
  • How often should you rebalance?
  • The MoneySense ETF Screener
  • Can you hedge against a market crash with ETFs?

The post How to spot and avoid illiquid ETFs appeared first on MoneySense.

시장 기회
Notcoin 로고
Notcoin 가격(NOT)
$0.0003871
$0.0003871$0.0003871
+0.59%
USD
Notcoin (NOT) 실시간 가격 차트
면책 조항: 본 사이트에 재게시된 글들은 공개 플랫폼에서 가져온 것으로 정보 제공 목적으로만 제공됩니다. 이는 반드시 MEXC의 견해를 반영하는 것은 아닙니다. 모든 권리는 원저자에게 있습니다. 제3자의 권리를 침해하는 콘텐츠가 있다고 판단될 경우, crypto.news@mexc.com으로 연락하여 삭제 요청을 해주시기 바랍니다. MEXC는 콘텐츠의 정확성, 완전성 또는 시의적절성에 대해 어떠한 보증도 하지 않으며, 제공된 정보에 기반하여 취해진 어떠한 조치에 대해서도 책임을 지지 않습니다. 본 콘텐츠는 금융, 법률 또는 기타 전문적인 조언을 구성하지 않으며, MEXC의 추천이나 보증으로 간주되어서는 안 됩니다.

추천 콘텐츠

Winklevoss Twins Move $130M Bitcoin to Gemini Wallets

Winklevoss Twins Move $130M Bitcoin to Gemini Wallets

Crypto investors are watching the latest moves from twins Cameron Winklevoss and Tyler Winklevoss. According to blockchain tracking data, wallets linked to the
공유하기
Coinfomania2026/03/10 20:12
Crypto Firm Proposes Cutting HYPE Supply by 45%

Crypto Firm Proposes Cutting HYPE Supply by 45%

The post Crypto Firm Proposes Cutting HYPE Supply by 45% appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. A crypto asset management firm that holds HYPE — the token behind decentralized derivatives exchange Hyperliquid —  has proposed cutting the total supply of HYPE by 45% to make its tokenomics more attractive to investors. In a post to X on Monday, DBA Asset Management investment manager Jon Charbonneau outlined three changes to Hyperliquid’s economic model: Revoking authorization for all unminted HYPE tokens for future emissions and community rewards (FECR), burning all HYPE in Hyperliquid’s Assistance Fund (AF), and removing HYPE’s 1 billion supply cap. His proposal was co-authored by pseudonymous crypto researcher Hasu. While the plan would need to be voted on and passed through Hyperliquid’s governance structure, DBA would be a major participant, given that it actively stakes HYPE and holds a material position in the token.  Source: Jon Charbonneau The DBA executive said the proposed change would seek to correct the market’s misvaluation of HYPE, which he said is distorted by the fully diluted valuation metric that includes unissued tokens.  “This is problematic because the market penalizes this excess supply in valuing the protocol, and pre-allocating these tokens may unduly bias future capital allocation decisions,” he said, adding that the change would make HYPE even more appealing to investors and stakers, while preserving the protocol’s ability to fund initiatives through new issuances. The proposal — which would see 421 million HYPE from the future emissions and community rewards category and 21 million from the assistance fund slashed — comes amid a recent uptick in investor interest in the Hyperliquid ecosystem. Within a week of revealing its new US dollar stablecoin, USDH, Hyperliquid opened a vote to decide who would issue the stablecoin, drawing interest from Paxos, Frax, Sky, Agora and Native Markets, which came out victorious last week. Hyperliquid handled $330 billion in trading volume in July…
공유하기
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/24 00:07
What to Expect in Laptop Rental Services: A Cost Breakdown

What to Expect in Laptop Rental Services: A Cost Breakdown

Laptop rental services are emerging as a popular choice. This is true, especially among businesses that require temporary equipment. Renting a laptop can be an
공유하기
Techbullion2026/03/10 20:05