Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
"The investment objective of the Tuttle Capital Meme Stock Income Blast ETF (the “Fund”) is to seek current income. The Fund’s secondary investment objective is to seek exposure to the share price of select securities that are generally characterized as 'MEME STOCKS'".
I'd guess that the vast majority of the 988 ETFs that launched over the past year are also worthless.
"Of the 988 ETFs that launched over the past year, 530 fell into at least one of 7 types: Leveraged/inverse (208), single-stock (181), buffer (140), option-income (88), tgt maturity (68), open-end conversion (65), digital-assets-related (46)."
someone in a podcast somewhere talked about the machination of creating an ETF and absolutely how much easier it is to do than a mutual fund. but they said that starting a ETF is expensive so unless something has changed, these things have to recoup so much before they just shut em down.
on a other discussion board a product called XOUT grew in popularity. they had a screeen that would remove 10-20% of the SP500. Basically their screen would rule out the worst 20%. people were discussing their methodology and how it was dumb or right but overwelmingly people were positive on the product. it lasted 2 years before getting shut down. #1. nobody put money into it and #2 it performed HORRIBLY.
"but they said that starting a ETF is expensive so unless something has changed, these things have to recoup so much before they just shut em down."
I've read that an ETF needs to have ~$100M AUM to be economically viable for the sponsoring firm. I can't vouch for the accuracy of this "rule of thumb." I'd imagine AUM can vary depending on the specific circumstances.
Comments
"Of the 988 ETFs that launched over the past year, 530 fell into at least one of 7 types:
Leveraged/inverse (208), single-stock (181), buffer (140), option-income (88),
tgt maturity (68), open-end conversion (65), digital-assets-related (46)."
https://x.com/syouth1/status/1960774713203912990
on a other discussion board a product called XOUT grew in popularity. they had a screeen that would remove 10-20% of the SP500. Basically their screen would rule out the worst 20%. people were discussing their methodology and how it was dumb or right but overwelmingly people were positive on the product. it lasted 2 years before getting shut down. #1. nobody put money into it and #2 it performed HORRIBLY.
I've read that an ETF needs to have ~$100M AUM to be economically viable for the sponsoring firm.
I can't vouch for the accuracy of this "rule of thumb."
I'd imagine AUM can vary depending on the specific circumstances.
That's probably pocket change for those looking to fleece the retail (allegedly dumb) investors.