ETFs - Exchange Traded Funds?

I'm going to move some money into an ETF sooner or later but wanted to get a good overview of all the ETF's Australia has to offer.

I can find a list on Wikipedia and allot of Fund Managers like Vanguard list these, but I was wondering if there was a central source of ETF's which can be bought and sold on Australian exchanges?

Would anyone know?
Thanks

Morningstar has a list of ETFs, and there is also a good one on the ASX site.
https://www.morningstar.com.au/ETFs
https://www.asx.com.au/products/etf/managed-funds-etp-product-list.htm

This website might be useful to you: http://www.etfwatch.com.au/

Thanks very much for the help!

It pays to look under the hood of ETFs​

don't just look , use a calculator and microscope ( and a financial adviser if confused by some of the jargon )

but in saying that i hold several ETFs ( and still get scorched here and there , and score some winners )

Absolutely one should look under the hood with ETFs. Especially when an article is penned by the Managing Director and CEO of VanEck (a sponsor of Firstlinks) or by any other provider who may be talking up their own book.

4 tips and tricks every ASX ETF investor should know​

A flood of investors into global equities has helped push the Australian exchange-traded funds market to a record high as fund managers scramble to get in on the action.

The ASX’s ETF market grew by 36 per cent to $199 billion in the 12 months until the end of June 2024, according to the exchange operator. When combined with ETFs listed on competitor exchange Cboe, that puts the Australian market above $200 billion.

Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) in Australia​

might be a useful starting point for novices and researchers

plenty more to research once you spot something interesting

Betashares started another ETF (see MTUM) and it currently holds CBA. Betashares holds CBA in multiple ETFs. It won't be long before an ETF company like B becomes a significant holder (>5%) of many ASX large cap companies.

Will they know this if it happens? Will they disclose this to the ASX?

How long before the ETF industry holds more than 15% of an ASX large cap and asks for a seat on the board?

I suppose we can already wonder if a large superannuation company doesn't already own more than 5% of a large cap ASX company and the whole industry could hold a few seats on company boards.

peter2 said:

Betashares started another ETF (see MTUM) and it currently holds CBA. Betashares holds CBA in multiple ETFs. It won't be long before an ETF company like B becomes a significant holder (>5%) of many ASX large cap companies.

Will they know this if it happens? Will they disclose this to the ASX?

How long before the ETF industry holds more than 15% of an ASX large cap and asks for a seat on the board?

I suppose we can already wonder if a large superannuation company doesn't already own more than 5% of a large cap ASX company and the whole industry could hold a few seats on company boards.

Click to expand...

Didn't Australian super buy a large stake in Origin, to block a takeover?

peter2 said:

Betashares started another ETF (see MTUM) and it currently holds CBA. Betashares holds CBA in multiple ETFs. It won't be long before an ETF company like B becomes a significant holder (>5%) of many ASX large cap companies.

Will they know this if it happens? Will they disclose this to the ASX?

How long before the ETF industry holds more than 15% of an ASX large cap and asks for a seat on the board?

I suppose we can already wonder if a large superannuation company doesn't already own more than 5% of a large cap ASX company and the whole industry could hold a few seats on company boards.

Click to expand...

Superannuation funds are already powerful enough to force some crappy creepy ESG agendas on companies at board meetings.
I have an actual problem when some employees of super funds, with no pie in the game (is it the expression ?) push a political agenda often against financial interests of both super fund and companies, and with no consequences to their own lives.
As for competition between funds.. let's ROL
For ETFs, they are financially interested, but at a risk of collusion and their interest is global, so potentially against a specific company.
Super funds and ETFs are 2 new rorts in the share market..which was not really needing more already imho

Vanguard was relatively quick this year in issuing its AMIT annual tax statements today. A quick check I have all the necessary information and submit to accountants tomorrow. Then a matter of waiting to find out how much I owe.

Macquarie Asset Management



i came across this shuffling around today

that might interest some

i hold MQG ( free-carried )

now i was looking through this , not so much to buy a new ETF or two but to help decide whether i retain or sell the existing MQG holding

i did note that

Macquarie Core Australian Equity Active ETF (ASX:MQAE)​

while it only charges a 0.03% pa of the net asset value of the Fund

it ALSO charges



'generally ' ?

so i recommend you dig very very carefully into these ETFs before parting with your cash

( i spend over a week researching/thinking on EVERY ETF i consider putting cash into

and that research has helped me dodge a few bullets )

PS please read ALL the fine print , those tiny details can make BIG differences to your outcomes

How ETFs and indexes cope with company delistings​

might be useful to some readers as well

divs4ever said:

Macquarie Asset Management

Macquarie ETFs

Discover Macquarie ETFs. Active ETFs backed by Macquarie's global investment expertise, now available through a simple trade on a stock exchange.

etf.macquarie.com

Macquarie Core Australian Equity Active ETF (ASX:MQAE)​

while it only charges a 0.03% pa of the net asset value of the Fund

it ALSO charges

Performance fee	20% of the cumulative outperformance of the Fund (after the management fee and expenses) above the return of the Index, subject to a high watermark.
Distribution frequency	Generally quarterly

'generally ' ?

so i recommend you dig very very carefully into these ETFs before parting with your cash

( i spend over a week researching/thinking on EVERY ETF i consider putting cash into

and that research has helped me dodge a few bullets )

PS please read ALL the fine print , those tiny details can make BIG differences to your outcomes

Click to expand...

Its an Active fund, so they are punting a bit looking for out performance to get the fee, everything one needs to know is in the title.

How ETFs and indexes cope with company delistings​

• Tony Kaye

Share markets are ever changing. Companies come, and companies go.
But what happens to share market indexes, and the exchange traded funds (ETFs) that use them as performance benchmarks, when a company is removed because of a merger or acquisition?

Source: ASX.com.au
One doesn’t have to look too hard to find some recent, high-profile examples of company delistings from the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX).
After more than 60 years on the ASX, the building products company CSR that started life in 1855 as the Colonial Sugar Refining Company was delisted in July following a $4.3 billion takeover by French construction group Saint-Gobain.
The construction materials company Boral (which listed in 1946 as Bitumen and Oil Refineries (Australia) Limited) also left the ASX in July after its $1.5 billion acquisition by Seven Group. Likewise, the bauxite mining and aluminium refineries investment group Alumina delisted from the ASX following its $3.4 billion takeover by U.S. giant Alcoa.
All up there have been 67 ASX delistings so far in 2024, including other high-profile removals such as concrete group Adbri (sold for $2.1 billion to Irish group CRH in July), and fruit and vegetables company Costa Group (sold for $1.5 billion to U.S. private equity group Paine Schwartz in February).

Understanding index construction​

All of the companies mentioned above had been included in various ASX indexes, such as the All Ordinaries Index and S&P/ASX 300 Index, based on their market capitalisation.
Share market indexes are structured to track the broad performance of markets and specific sectors, typically by tracking the share price returns of the companies that have been included in the index.
For example, the S&P/ASX 300 Index tracks the returns of the top 300 ASX companies based on their market capitalisation. In turn, the Vanguard Australian Shares Index ETF (VAS) uses the S&P/ASX 300 Index as its performance benchmark.
So, what happens to indexes and ETFs when companies effectively vanish from a share market?

Index rebalancing​

Indexes are rebalanced on a regular basis as part of scheduled reviews to ensure benchmarks stay up to date and continue to accurately reflect their purpose.
ETFs and unlisted managed funds tracking an index will adjust their own portfolio holdings in tandem with any changes made to the benchmark index.
On the ASX, scheduled rebalancing changes typically take effect after the market close on the third Friday of March, June, September, and December.
The S&P/ASX 300 is rebalanced semi-annually, effective after the market close on the third Friday of March and September.
Eligible stocks are considered for index inclusion based on their rank relative to the stated quota of securities for each index.
But company deletions also can occur between index rebalancing dates due to acquisitions, mergers and spin-offs or due to suspension and bankruptcies. The decision to remove a stock from an index rests with the index provider and will be made once there is sufficient evidence that a transaction will be completed.
Company delistings will typically trigger an intra-rebalancing process if an index level is comprised of a fixed number of companies. But not all indexes are based on a fixed count.
The S&P/ASX 300 and All Ordinaries are not fixed count indices, so intra-rebalancing additions are only made when a replacement added to the S&P/ASX 200 (or a higher index) is not a constituent of the S&P/ASX 300 and All Ordinaries.
Index additions are made according to various criteria as laid out in their respective methodologies. For the S&P/ASX300, market capitalisation, free float and liquidity are some of the criteria considered, whereas for the All Ordinaries Index, there is no liquidity screen or minimum float requirement.
The reference date used to determine an ad-hoc index replacement is determined on a case-by-case basis and taken closer to the time of the event that triggered the vacancy.
More information on how indexes are rebalanced on the ASX can be found in S&P/ASX Australian Indices Methodology.

Tony Kaye is a Senior Personal Finance writer at Vanguard

Where is peak ETF?​

• Joachim Klement
• 04 December 2024

The market share of ETFs and index trackers keeps rising and with it concerns about reduced market efficiency. In theory, if everyone would simply track an index, new information would no longer be reflected in share prices, and it would become highly profitable to be active and short stocks with negative news flow while buying stocks with positive news flow. This theoretical argument shows that there should be an equilibrium between index funds and active investors or that markets stop working. But where that equilibrium is, is anyone’s guess.

If we look at the latest figures from the Investment Company Institute about ETF market share in different countries (note this is across stocks, bonds, real estate, and commodities, so the numbers are lower than equity markets alone) we can see that in Anglo-Saxon countries, ETFs and index trackers typically have a much higher share than in continental Europe. Japan and South Korea seem to follow more the US and UK example, which is why we should consider Germany, France, or Switzerland outliers (there is a future post in that statistic somewhere).

Market share of ETFs across all major asset classes

Source: ICI, The Investment Association

The question is whether the market share of 15-25% reached by index trackers today is the peak. I doubt it and I expect index trackers to continue to gain share for many years to come.

But there are also increasing signs that with the rising share of index trackers, markets are becoming less efficient, particularly in the large-cap space.
Theresa Hambacher reviewed the last 20 years of research on index funds to see if index funds really reduce market efficiency and if active managers can drive markets back toward efficiency if too many investors switch to index trackers.
Her literature review concludes that the majority of studies show that the rise of index investing creates an ‘index inclusion effect’. Historically, this index inclusion effect meant a price jump in stocks that are newly included in an index and a drop for stocks that are excluded. But this price impact has declined significantly and all but disappeared in the US.

Nowadays, the index inclusion effect is more related to other metrics, most notably an increase in liquidity in stocks in an index. With this increase in liquidity also comes an increase in investor attention and a somewhat higher valuation. The increase in investor attention leads to higher institutional ownership, higher analyst coverage, and increased media coverage. But it also has other, more material effects. Most notably, increased liquidity and higher valuations reduce the cost of capital for both debt and equity capital and thus give index constituents an advantage over smaller stocks that are not part of the index.

On the other hand, there is ample evidence that market efficiency and price discovery decline if index funds capture a larger share of the market. This should in principle give an opening for active managers, who on average increase price efficiency and take advantage of market mispricing.

The reality, however, is more complex. Market efficiency is driven by a whole lot of factors, not just the share of index funds. This means that if active funds capture market inefficiencies and make markets more efficient, this does not drive investors away from index funds. Instead, markets may adjust in such a way as to become more efficient without reducing the market share of index funds. Plus, market efficiency is not the only driver of index fund market share. Hence, active funds may outperform index funds and improve market efficiency but get no reward in the form of higher market share. Instead, index fund investors may simply free-ride on the work of active fund managers.

These two effects are not new. They have been known for some time. But taken together they imply that the market share for index trackers may well increase past the optimal level and stay there for many, many years. And there seems very little if anything that active managers can do to reverse that. Hence, we do not know where peak ETF is, and while active managers provide a valuable service in making markets more efficient, they are not necessarily rewarded for it by capturing a larger share of investor assets.

Joachim Klement is an investment strategist based in London. This article contains the opinion of the author. As such, it should not be construed as investment advice, nor do the opinions expressed necessarily reflect the views of the author’s employer. Republished with permission from Klement on Investing.

Betashares will close a total of nine of its [so-called] future facing funds, including metaverse, future of food, future of payments, and online retail and e-commerce, due to a lack of interest from investors.

"We recently took the opportunity to evaluate our range of investment exposures to ensure they align with investor demand into the future,” a Betashares spokesman said. “This is only the second time in our 14-year history that we’ve undertaken this process and a natural step in the evolution of our growing product range.”

“As part of this process, we decided to close a small number of funds where we concluded that investor take-up was going to remain limited, despite the strong take-up of our investment strategies overall,” he added.

Investors in the funds can sell their units on the ASX before close of trading on January 17, or hold their units and receive a final distribution payment.

Dona Ferentes said:

we decided to close a small number of funds where we concluded that investor take-up was going to remain limited, despite the strong take-up of our investment strategies overall,

Click to expand...

What on earth does that mean? Seems to me nothing but double speak.