14-10-2015, 09:14 AM
An interesting view. I reckon, the root cause, isn't on the product itself, but on "enhancement(s)" which have distorted the original product or concept.
For the securitization, the concept is good, but the repackaging with a "falsified" rating, is the root cause of GFC2008.
For the ETF, I have seen product named as "Active ETF"? Based on description, it sound like a broad-based active fund, rather than the passive ETF as we all know. I didn't check further, but I guess the fee should be much higher than the typical 0.3%, and carries much higher volatility than the index.
For the securitization, the concept is good, but the repackaging with a "falsified" rating, is the root cause of GFC2008.
For the ETF, I have seen product named as "Active ETF"? Based on description, it sound like a broad-based active fund, rather than the passive ETF as we all know. I didn't check further, but I guess the fee should be much higher than the typical 0.3%, and carries much higher volatility than the index.