Funds: Don't buy what you don't understand
With exchange traded funds (ETFs) straying into newer and more complex areas, the FSA recently decreed leveraged ETFs as generally unsuitable for the average retail investor. The clear message is never to buy anything you don't understand. Paul Amery reports.

Last week the Financial Services Authority (FSA) issued a new discussion paper entitled 'Product Intervention'. In it, the FSA lumped leveraged exchange-traded funds (ETFs) in a single high-risk category with "complicated structured products" and "traded life policy investments", classifying all three as generally unsuitable for the average retail investor. As we've noted before here, the performance of a leveraged ETF, which typically promises twice or three times the daily (positive or negative) return on an index, will diverge over time from the same multiple of the index return. This is due to the daily rebalancing that leveraged ETFs undergo (for more on how this works, see here).
The trouble is, the FSA will have a job on its hands if it plans to take a proscriptive stance in deciding exactly which retail investment products are or are not suitable for consumers. Its initial list seems arbitrary and lacking in a common theme: leveraged ETFs tend to be highly liquid (easy to trade) but can cause problems if you don't understand how the rebalancing occurs. By contrast, complex structured products and traded endowment policies are dangerous because pricing tends to be opaque; they often give you full counter-party risk exposure to the issuer; and there is usually a limited secondary market, or none at all.
You could also argue that other product types might have been included. Certain commodity and volatility trackers can also surprise the uninitiated. In 2009, crude oil nearly doubled in price. But trackers that replicate a passive position in oil futures contracts barely budged. Last year people betting on a rebound in equity market volatility (by playing the Vix index) and using ETFs to do it faced an annual cost of 75% purely from rolling the relevant futures contracts. There was nothing underhand here in each case the huge headwind was a by-product of the way the index works.
Subscribe to MoneyWeek
Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE

Sign up to Money Morning
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
This is surely the key message from the FSA's paper: never buy anything you don't understand. You must have a full grasp of what the benchmark your fund tracks actually does before investing your cash. This is more important than ever as ETFs stray into newer and more complex areas.
Paul Amery edits www.indexuniverse.eu , the top source of news and analysis on Europe's ETF and index-fund market.
Sign up for MoneyWeek's newsletters
Get the latest financial news, insights and expert analysis from our award-winning MoneyWeek team, to help you understand what really matters when it comes to your finances.
Paul is a multi-award-winning journalist, currently an editor at New Money Review. He has contributed an array of money titles such as MoneyWeek, Financial Times, Financial News, The Times, Investment and Thomson Reuters. Paul is certified in investment management by CFA UK and he can speak more than five languages including English, French, Russian and Ukrainian. On MoneyWeek, Paul writes about funds such as ETFs and the stock market.
-
8 of the best houses for sale with home cinemas
Houses for sale with home cinemas – from a modern oast-house style property in Kent to a house in Buckinghamshire with Dolby sound and bespoke seating
By Natasha Langan Published
-
Rachel Reeves faces £23 billion capital gains tax “black hole” – will she be forced to look elsewhere?
The fiscal watchdog has downgraded its forecast for capital gains tax revenues, leaving chancellor Rachel Reeves with £23 billion less than previously expected
By Katie Williams Published