The world of exchange-traded funds (ETFs) has become notably congested, with a bewildering array of names and offerings vying for investor attentionConsequently, investors are frequently encountering challenges—particularly when trading on the market floor—due to this overcrowded landscape and the often confusing names attached to these financial instrumentsIn a significant move aimed at addressing these challenges, one of the leading asset management companies in China, E Fund Management Co., has initiated a large-scale nomenclature reform involving the renaming of many of its ETFs.

On January 13, E Fund announced that starting January 14, it would adopt a new naming convention for 17 of its ETFs, affecting 10 listed on the Shanghai Stock Exchange and seven on the Shenzhen Stock ExchangeThe new naming approach incorporates a straightforward formula: "benchmark index + ETF + manager name." This structural change seeks to bolster the recognition of each product, thereby reducing the potential for trading errors.

Industry experts highlight that the proliferation of ETFs tracking similar underlying indices has increasingly muddied the waters

Stakeholders from various asset management firms indicate a growing awareness regarding the importance of simplified and distinctive naming conventions to enhance product visibility in trading scenariosThis initiative by E Fund is spearheading a broader movement across the sector, as other firms begin to recognize the need for clearer identifiers for their products.

A crucial aspect of this reform is that every ETF has a reduced version of its full name for on-market trading, known as its "trading symbol" or "market name." Typically, this abbreviated title is what investors will see first when browsing ETFsShould they wish to dig deeper and uncover full titles or management details, they must engage in further research.

For instance, under E Fund’s revised naming strategy, an ETF that previously went by the name “Consumption 50 ETF” has been renamed to “Consumption ETF E Fund,” aligning it with the new standard

Similar adjustments apply to others, such as “CSI 1000 Index ETF” transitioning to “CSI 1000 ETF E Fund.” This specific style of naming is not merely cosmetic; it addresses many of the confusions that arise when multiple products track identical indices, often leading to duplicated or near-duplicated names that creators seem to have not sufficiently optimized.

Beyond E Fund’s measures, other firms are also taking noteFor example, on the same day that E Fund made its announcement, another major player, Harvest Fund Management, revealed plans to transition the on-market name for its "Science and Technology Innovation Biopharmaceutical ETF" to the more descriptive "Science and Technology Medicine Index ETF." Furthermore, this trend appears to be gathering momentum, with even more asset managers, such as Ping An Asset Management, intending to modify their product identifiers to bolster clarity—such as changing the "Active National Debt ETF" to "National Debt ETF, 5-10 Years."

As identical or very similar ETFs populate the market, providing a distinctly recognizable name has become paramount

According to data from Wind, the total number of ETFs available has surpassed one thousand, with more than 800 of those being stock ETFsThis saturation within the stock ETF bracket creates fertile ground for confusion, especially as multiple firms may market similar products simultaneouslyMany investors find themselves grappling with not only similar names but also the inherent ambiguity in distinguishing which fund tracks what index.

The complexity arises further when examining sector-specific ETFsFor instance, ETFs linked to the CSI Innovation and Entrepreneurship 50 Index have acquired a plethora of names on the market, such as “Double Creation ETF,” “Double Creation 50 ETF,” and “Innovative Entrepreneurship ETF.” Yet, in some cases, these titles lack crucial identifiers, such as the fund manager’s name, rendering it challenging for investors to distinguish between these products effectively

alefox

In another scenario, the recent inflow into the CSI A500 ETF reveal that although its name provides some insight into the index it follows, a lack of fund manager information can lead to potential misallocations by investors in a fast-paced trading environment.

The battle among asset managers to stake their claims in the ETF arena has led to an explosion of alternative names for the same index or sector, making it increasingly cumbersome for an average investor to navigateFor example, five stock ETFs tracking the CSI Healthcare Index were launched between April and November 2021, leading one of them to use "Healthcare ETF," leaving the others to resort to more obscure titles like "Medical Industry," "Medical Equipment," and "Medical Services,” which fail to clearly communicate the relevant investment thesis to investors.

Furthermore, some themed ETFs are attempting to differentiate their offerings by appending numerical identifiers to their names, ostensibly to indicate the number of constituent stocks in a base index

This approach can backfire, particularly in the context of sector-specific ETFs, where such numbering merely adds to the confusionThe ETFs tracking the CSI New Materials Theme Index invariably feature seven different products, with two specifically named as "New Materials 50 ETF." This insistence on introducing numbers complicates rather than clarifies the landscape, alienating potential investors seeking accessible information.

It is evident that more transparent and index-aligned nomenclature for stock ETFs holds immense importance in enhancing investor recognition and reducing trading errorsAs a growing number of companies follow E Fund's lead in simplifying and clarifying their market names, the chances of investor confusion dwindling increaseThis ongoing review of ETF naming conventions stands testament to an evolving market that is gradually prioritizing investor protection and clarity over the proliferation of convoluted financial products.

In conclusion, the recent trend towards standardizing the naming of ETFs reflects an industry-wide effort to cultivate greater transparency and ease of navigation for investors