arbiter
JournalsAccount

A hidden cost of ETF investing: Retail demand shocks and limits to arbitrage

Xin Liu et al.

Journal of Banking & Finance2026https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2025.107621article
AJG 3ABDC A*
Weight
0.50

Abstract

By decomposing close-to-close mid-quote returns of ETFs into their overnight and intraday components, we find that the overnight return is significantly positive, whereas the intraday return is negative. This overnight–intraday return differential is ubiquitous across ETFs tracking different asset classes or assets located in different time zones. This phenomenon cannot be explained by differences in overnight and intraday risks, macroeconomic announcements, or information asymmetry. Instead, our analysis reveals that the return pattern is primarily driven by demand shocks from retail investors and limited supply from arbitrageurs. These results indicate that the convenience of buying ETFs during intraday trading hours carries a hidden cost to investors.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2025.107621

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{xin2026,
  title        = {{A hidden cost of ETF investing: Retail demand shocks and limits to arbitrage}},
  author       = {Xin Liu et al.},
  journal      = {Journal of Banking & Finance},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2025.107621},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

A hidden cost of ETF investing: Retail demand shocks and limits to arbitrage

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.