If Axl Rose of Guns and Roses fame wrote songs about mutual funds, he might have had a hit with, 'Welcome to The (ETF) Jungle, Baby', especially after yesterday's 3-0 Securities and Exchange Commission vote. As reported in the Wall Street Journal:
The Securities and Exchange Commission voted 3-0 yesterday, as expected, to propose changes that would allow exchange-traded funds to be introduced quickly without review by federal regulators and give mutual funds more leeway to invest in ETFs.
Under the proposal, most ETFs could be brought to market directly, saving sponsors the time and expense of obtaining approval from the SEC. The speedier approach would apply to passively and actively managed ETFs that trade on national securities markets and provide daily pricing to investors.
...SEC Commissioner Paul Atkins endorsed the new approach, saying the agency's ETF review process has sometimes taken years, rather than months, and that innovative product ideas may wind up getting shelved.
...SEC Chairman Christopher Cox called the proposal 'a significant step forward for investors' that would allow new ETF products to be brought to market sooner, and provide similar disclosure documents to investors in mutual funds and ETFs. Currently, ETF investors receive a full-blown prospectus but the SEC proposal calls for such investors to get a shorter summary, in line with a pending SEC proposal for mutual funds.
Actively managed ETFs that don't provide daily information about their portfolio holdings wouldn't be covered by the SEC's proposal."
Perhaps the SEC is willing to give new exchange traded funds the benefit of the doubt because they are generally lower fee than ordinary mutual funds, and to them cheapness outweighs concerns about potential risk. Perhaps they are concerned they have an antiquated regulatory regime (true) that isn't keeping pace with ever more newfangled exchange traded fund like products, like exchange traded notes.
But this diminishing SEC scrutiny will only encourage the launching of ever wackier ETFs. While we have nothing against ETFs, our experience is that the more targeted a fund, the more fund investors as a group tend to lose. Adding intra-day trading, commissions, and bid / ask spreads will likely only exacerbate this problem.
We're not saying the government should get in the way, only that getting out of the way so investors can get more ETFs more quickly could expose some investors to less than desirable products. Lets not forget that in theory all the innovations in mortgage lending were a benefit to consumers and in some cases can save money over a traditional 30 year fixed mortgage. Trouble is, the typical home buyer probably didn't benefit from the innovation of a negative amortization, no money down, adjustable rate 5/1 ARM linked to LIBOR. Perhaps the same will eventually be said about a double inverse China tech stock ETF.
Want More ETFs? Your Wish Has Come True.
If Axl Rose of Guns and Roses fame wrote songs about mutual funds, he might have had a hit with, 'Welcome to The (ETF) Jungle, Baby', especially after yesterday's 3-0 Securities and Exchange Commission vote. As reported in the Wall Street Journal:
The Securities and Exchange Commission voted 3-0 yesterday, as expected, to propose changes that would allow exchange-traded funds to be introduced quickly without review by federal regulators and give mutual funds more leeway to invest in ETFs.
Under the proposal, most ETFs could be brought to market directly, saving sponsors the time and expense of obtaining approval from the SEC. The speedier approach would apply to passively and actively managed ETFs that trade on national securities markets and provide daily pricing to investors.
...SEC Commissioner Paul Atkins endorsed the new approach, saying the agency's ETF review process has sometimes taken years, rather than months, and that innovative product ideas may wind up getting shelved.
...SEC Chairman Christopher Cox called the proposal 'a significant step forward for investors' that would allow new ETF products to be brought to market sooner, and provide similar disclosure documents to investors in mutual funds and ETFs. Currently, ETF investors receive a full-blown prospectus but the SEC proposal calls for such investors to get a shorter summary, in line with a pending SEC proposal for mutual funds.
Actively managed ETFs that don't provide daily information about their portfolio holdings wouldn't be covered by the SEC's proposal."
Perhaps the SEC is willing to give new exchange traded funds the benefit of the doubt because they are generally lower fee than ordinary mutual funds, and to them cheapness outweighs concerns about potential risk. Perhaps they are concerned they have an antiquated regulatory regime (true) that isn't keeping pace with ever more newfangled exchange traded fund like products, like exchange traded notes.
But this diminishing SEC scrutiny will only encourage the launching of ever wackier ETFs. While we have nothing against ETFs, our experience is that the more targeted a fund, the more fund investors as a group tend to lose. Adding intra-day trading, commissions, and bid / ask spreads will likely only exacerbate this problem.
We're not saying the government should get in the way, only that getting out of the way so investors can get more ETFs more quickly could expose some investors to less than desirable products. Lets not forget that in theory all the innovations in mortgage lending were a benefit to consumers and in some cases can save money over a traditional 30 year fixed mortgage. Trouble is, the typical home buyer probably didn't benefit from the innovation of a negative amortization, no money down, adjustable rate 5/1 ARM linked to LIBOR. Perhaps the same will eventually be said about a double inverse China tech stock ETF.
LINK