All NewsEducationTVBrokers
Equities & FundsCrypto & Digital AssetsAI & TechnologyBusiness & CorporateUS Politics & PolicyGeopolitics & Global RiskMacro, Rates & FXCommodities & EnergyEuropean Politics & MarketsAsia-PacificReal Estate & Property
All NewsHome
← Back to Equities & Funds

Investors push back on SEC's 'novel ETF' label proposal

Created at 1 Sep · 8:48 PM1 source↑ Market-relevant
IN SHORT

Market participants have expressed concerns to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission regarding its proposal to label a broad range of exchange-traded funds as 'novel ETFs.' Industry players argue that such a label could stifle innovation and penalize new product development.

Key Numbers

$12 trillionU.S. ETF market size

Who's Involved

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Wall Street regulator reviewing ETF proposals
Rafferty Asset Management
Argued against defining 'Novel ETFs'
Angela Brickl
Chief operating officer and general counsel of Rafferty Asset Management
Nasdaq
Urged focus on structural characteristics for regulation
Jeffrey Davis
Senior vice president of Nasdaq
Adjacent Markets
Builds indexes tied to event contracts
Douglas Crescenzi
Chief operating officer of Adjacent Markets
Better Markets
Advocacy group on securities policy
Ben Schiffrin
Director of securities policy at Better Markets
YieldMax
Asset management firm benefiting from current rules
Mike Khouw
Strategist at YieldMax
Investors push back on SEC's 'novel ETF' label proposal

↳ Why This Matters

The SEC's classification of 'novel ETFs' could significantly impact the development and accessibility of new investment products, potentially affecting market innovation and investor choice within the vast U.S. ETF market.

Key facts

  • Market participants have voiced concerns to the SEC about its proposed 'novel ETF' label.
  • Asset managers and exchanges argue that a broad definition of 'novel' could hinder innovation.
  • Concerns exist that a new regulatory process for 'novel ETFs' could negatively impact the $12 trillion U.S. ETF market.
  • Nasdaq suggested focusing on structural characteristics for regulation rather than asset-class labels.
  • Some filings advocated for treating ETFs tied to prediction markets like any other ETF.

Market participants have voiced significant concerns to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding its proposal to label a wide range of exchange-traded funds (ETFs) as 'novel ETFs.' According to a Reuters review of letters filed with the regulator, asset managers, exchanges, and brokerage firms argue that such a broad classification could stifle innovation and create regulatory hurdles.

Rafferty Asset Management, through its Direxion business, stated in its submission that a definition keyed to current new asset classes would quickly become obsolete, penalizing future innovations. Similarly, issuers and exchanges expressed worries that introducing a separate regulatory process for 'novel ETFs' could jeopardize the growth of the substantial $12 trillion U.S. ETF market.

Mike Khouw, a strategist at YieldMax, noted that lumping diverse products together is "painting with too broad a brush." Nasdaq, represented by Senior Vice President Jeffrey Davis, acknowledged that some recent ETF filings have tested boundaries but urged the SEC to focus on "structural characteristics that meaningfully affect investor protection and market integrity" rather than asset-class labels.

Only a few comment letters specifically addressed ETFs tied to prediction markets. Douglas Crescenzi, COO of Adjacent Markets, advocated for treating them like any other ETF. However, Ben Schiffrin from the advocacy group Better Markets argued that these funds should not be considered equivalent to traditional ETFs invested in securities.

Frequently asked questions

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is considering labeling a broad range of exchange-traded funds as 'novel ETFs' and is soliciting industry comments on this approach.

Market participants argue that a broad definition of 'novel' could stifle innovation, make regulations obsolete quickly, and potentially harm the growth of the U.S. ETF market.

Nasdaq suggests that the SEC should focus on the structural characteristics of ETFs that affect investor protection and market integrity, rather than using asset-class labels.

Some argue that ETFs tied to prediction markets should be regulated like any other ETF, while advocacy groups believe they should not be treated as equivalent to traditional securities-based ETFs.

What Happens Next

01The SEC will consider the submitted comments as it charts a path forward for regulating novel ETFs.
CME Headlines
  • E-mini S&P 500 futures pull back to 7,700 to start week.
    31 Aug · 8:48 PM
  • E-mini S&P 500 futures pull back to 7,700 to start week.
    31 Aug · 8:48 PM
  • Nasdaq-100 futures drop amid hawkish Fed comments.
    28 Aug · 11:57 PM

How It Developed

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission initiated a review of ETFs, soliciting industry comments.
Market participants raised concerns over the SEC's proposal to label a broad swathe of ETFs as 'novel ETFs.'
Rafferty Asset Management argued that 'Novel ETFs' cannot be effectively defined and would become obsolete.
Issuers and exchanges warned that a different process for novel ETFs could jeopardize the growth of the U.S. ETF market.
Nasdaq urged the SEC to focus on structural characteristics rather than asset-class labels for regulation.
Some argued that ETFs tied to prediction markets should be treated like any other ETF.
Advocacy group Better Markets stated there is no reason to treat these funds as equivalent to traditional ETFs.

Sources

T1
Investors argue against novel ETF label in letters to US SECReuters

Related Stories

Shareholder opposition to executive pay eases globally
31 Aug · 11:11 PM
BlackRock Bitcoin ETF Outperforms S&P 500 Fund Since Launch
1 Sep · 4:41 PM
SpaceX's UK retail offer could spur more large IPOs via new platform
1 Sep · 6:11 AM
Crypto Stocks COIN, BMNR, CRCL Decline Amid Fed Rate Hike Concerns
1 Sep · 4:57 PM
James Meenan joins Dymon Asia as managing director
1 Sep · 11:31 AM