I don't understand why a pro money manager like Bridgewater would hold ETFs, and the "liquidity" explanation doesn't make any sense: since ETFs need to hold the underlying shares, there's no difference in overall market impact between putting $1000 to work buying direct or $1000 to work via an ETF. Except, doing the latter incurs management fees, hands scalping profits to arbitrageurs, and effectively outsources some of the portfolio construction to ETF managers. The benefit of ETFs for retail investors is in avoiding the operational complexities, hassle, and retail commission bills involved in buying large baskets of shares, rebalancing, due diligence on dozens or hundreds of symbols, etc. but none of this applies to a huge hedge fund fully capable of deploying the necessary technology and analytical/management capabilities. This is all the more true given the article's thesis that part of Bridgewater's edge lies in these amazing analytical capabilities and automation. So what gives?