(R)evolution of ETFs

(R)evolution of ETFs

Agenda The global ETP marketplace Indexing adoption accelerates Fee and regulatory (r)evolution ETF usage trends Trading evolution 2

Global ETP marketplace Assets (US$ billions) $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 1990 1993 1996 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2012 SPDRs, Morgan State First ETF ishares XACT ProShares U.S.-listed Securities ETF Vanguard Street launches Stanley listed AUM launches and ETF launches on first introduces = BGI first FTSE $1.352 first trillion Toronto WEBS, enter bond US-listed ETFs managed Stock market in ETF the Lyxor first A50 leveraged inverse ETF commodity China ETF launches Index Exchange US Global ex-u.s. AUM first ETF by = $571 billion Merrill swap-based Barclays Global Bank Lynch Investors ETF launches launches first Global ETN AUM = $1.923 trillion first European ETF 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 Num mber of ETPs $0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 Left axis U.S.-listed ETP assets Worldwide ETP assets ex-u.s. Right axis Number of U.S.-listed ETPs Number of worldwide ETPs ex-u.s. 0 Source: Illustration by The Vanguard Group, Inc. using data as at December 31, 2012, from Bloomberg, Morningstar and Simfund. 3

ETPs and indexing, moving in tandem (flows) Active and passive fund flows Fund cash flows (US S$ billions) 800 ETFs as 74% 74% 99% 61% 72% 89% 62% 92% 92% 62% 100% 94% 72% 65% 95% percentage of passive 600 400 200 0-200 3.0-10.9 5.7-16.4 1.7 7.8 4.9 5.0 11.8 8.3-400 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 U.S. active fund flows U.S. passive fund flows Global ex-u.s. active fund flows Global ex-u.s. passive fund flows Canada active fund flows Canada passive fund flows Source: Illustration by The Vanguard Group, Inc. using data as at December 31, 2012, from Morningstar, Inc. 4

ETPs and indexing, moving in tandem (AUM) Total fund assets under management 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 U.S. active 86.9% 84.6% 82.0% 80.8% 80.8% U.S. passive 13.1% 15.4% 18.0% 19.2% 19.2% Global ex-u.s. active 94.2% 93.1% 92.9% 92.7% 90.5% Global ex-u.s. passive 5.8% 6.9% 7.1% 7.3% 9.5% Canadian assets under management Canada active 95.1% 93.8% 93.1% 92.2% 90.7% Canada passive 4.9% 6.2% 6.9% 7.8% 9.3% Source: Illustration by The Vanguard Group, Inc. using data from Morningstar, Inc 5

However, this growth also means many ETFs globally are at risk of closing Tenure (years) $100,000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Assets, US$ millions $10,000 $1,000 $100 $10 $1 ETFs that failed to capture $30 million AUM in 3 years 62.9% closed ETFs (352/560*) 31.5% open ETFs (1,255/3,990**) Open Closed Source: Calculations by The Vanguard Group, Inc. using data as at December 31, 2012, from Bloomberg, Morningstar and Simfund. *600 closed, 40 ETPs did not have sufficient data available for calculation. **4,994 open, 1,004 ETPs did not have sufficient data available for calculation. 6

Where the revolution started Percentage of fee-based compensation in the U.S. 50% 55% 54% 57% 55% 39% 44% 26% 28% 31% 33% 18% 20% 10% <1999 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Source: Illustration by The Vanguard Group, Inc. using data as at December 31, 2011, from Financial Research Corporation, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, and Cerulli. 7

Where the revolution s going Percentage of commission-based assets and fee-based brokerage assets in Canada 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Sept. 2003 Sept. 2004 Sept. 2005 Sept. 2006 Sept. 2007 Sept. 2008 Sept. 2009 Sept. 2010 Sept. 2011 Sept. 2012 Commission-based asset share Fee-based brokerage asset share Source: Investor Economics: Retail Brokerage and Distribution Advisory Service, Fall 2012. 8

Where the revolution s going Percentage of fee-based compensation around the world 55% 25% 15% 10% U.S. Australia Canada U.K. Source: Illustration by The Vanguard Group, Inc. using data as at December 31, 2011, from The Vanguard Group, Inc. and Cerulli (U.S., U.K. and Australia) and as at September 30, 2012, from Investor Economics (Canada). 9

Regulatory (r)evolution 10

Pattern of channel uptake It starts with institutions ETF market penetration n (by channel) Global ex-u.s. market today Europe and Asia U.S. and Canadian market today Time Direct Advisor Institutional Less sophisticated individual investors as final adopters. Education and institutional adoption lead to recognition of ETFs benefits as low-cost diversification tool. More sophisticated early adopters create liquidity, reduce spreads, make ETFs more broadly attractive. Illustrative (not drawn to scale). Source: Analysis by The Vanguard Group, Inc. using data as at December 31, 2011, from The Vanguard Group, Inc., Bain & Co. and Investor Economics. 11

Pattern of channel uptake From institutions to advisors Institutional Advisor Direct U.S. 51% 45% 4% Canada 39% 39% 22% U.K. 90% 9% 1% Continental Europe 85% 10% 5% Asia 90% 9% 1% Australia 10% 30% 60% Source: Analysis by The Vanguard Group, Inc. using data as at June 30, 2012, from The Vanguard Group, Inc., Bain & Co. and Investor Economics. 12

Product usage questions and considerations Investor preferences determine the implementation strategy Cost What are the acquisition and maintenance costs, including expense ratios, bid/ask spreads, brokerage commissions and borrowing costs? How do they affect excess returns? Tracking error What causes tracking error? Funds and ETFs rely on replication and optimization. Futures have basis risk and contango or backwardation. Swaps costs and terms can change. Liquidity How important is it? Funds have great end-of-day liquidity. Futures and ETFs have varying intraday liquidity (very good or not very good). Swaps depend on relationships and dealer capacity. Counterparty risk To what extent does it exist? On-exchange futures guaranteed by clearinghouse. Swaps can be collateralized. Physical ETFs and funds largely settlement-based. Securities lending can be collateralized. Capital requirements How much capital is required to establish and maintain the position? ETFs and funds require 100% capital unless a margin position. Futures require less than 100% but have initial margin and maintenance margin. Swaps could require collateral up front and/or ongoing to reset exposures. 13

U.S. ETF usage trends Most important selection criteria Expense ratio of fund Liquidity/trading volume Tracking error of fund Fund company and management behind funds Benchmark used Breadth of ETF offerings Track record of fund Servicing by sponsoring organization 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Institutional funds Asset managers Note: Based on responses from 62 institutional funds and 18 asset managers in 2012. Source: Illustration by The Vanguard Group, Inc. using data from 2012 U.S. Exchange-Traded Funds Study by Greenwich Associates, LLC. 14

U.S. ETF usage trends Institutional funds vs. asset managers Transitions Rebalancing Tactical adjustments Cash equitization/interim beta Portfolio completion ETF overlay/liquidity sleeve Core/satellite Hedging Other 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Institutional funds Asset managers Note: Based on responses from 62 institutional funds and 18 asset managers in 2012. Source: Illustration by The Vanguard Group, Inc. using data from 2012 U.S. Exchange-Traded Funds Study by Greenwich Associates, LLC. 15

U.S. ETF usage trends Institutional funds Transitions Rebalancing Tactical adjustments Cash equitization/interim Beta Portfolio completion ETF overlay/liquidity sleeve Core/satellite Hedging Other 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 2012 2011 2010 Note: Based on responses from 62 institutional funds in 2012. Source: Illustration by The Vanguard Group, Inc. using data from 2012 U.S. Exchange-Traded Funds Study by Greenwich Associates, LLC. 16

Typical ETF holding period for U.S. institutions Asset managers Institutional funds Less than 1 month 28% 41% 7% 12% 1 to 6 months 22% 41% 24% 7 to 12 months 0% 17% 19% 26% Less than 1 to 2 years 11% 6% 15% More than 2 years 12% 22% 21% 36% 0% 25% 50% 0% 25% 50% 2012 2011 Note: May not total 100% due to rounding. Based on responses from 62 institutional funds and 18 asset managers in 2012. Source: Illustration by The Vanguard Group, Inc. using data from 2012 U.S. Exchange-Traded Funds Study by Greenwich Associates, LLC. 17

ETPs get the blame Flash Crash, May 6, 2010 ETFs blamed as 60% of securities with cancelled trades were ETFs Rogue trading scandals at Société Generale and UBS ETF Delta One desks involved, raising questions about ETFs Manipulated the custom settlement structure in Europe Falsified backdated settlement ETF trades booked against exposed futures bets Other ways ETPs have been pulled into debates: Counterparty risk with swap-based and physical ETFs Market volatility blamed on ETFs End-of-day rebalancing on leveraged ETFs Large ETF trades impacting trade in underlying baskets Questions about whether an ETF can collapse due to short interest and failure to deliver Premium/discounts on some ETFs owing to creation limitations 18

An ever-changing regulatory environment affects ETP trading To centralize markets, improve trade execution Reg NMS (U.S.) OPR (Canada) MiFID and MiFID II (Europe) To strengthen investor confidence Regulation SHO short-selling rules Circuit breakers, limit up/down after 2010 Flash Crash High-frequency traders under scrutiny On market making compensation Direct payment Indirect payment 19

The changing face of market making 2005 Larger banks and brokers Floor specialist Managed flow into specific ETFs ETF arbitrage 2012 Boutique proprietary trading and hedge funds Upstairs traders with strong quantitative and programming skills High-frequency trading Complex portfolio risk management of a trading book of ETFs and hedges 20

What lies ahead? Exchanges innovate globally Ability for continuous trading around the globe (passing the book) Exchanges grow global footprint through consolidation Will new players emerge? (Singapore goal to be lead market in Pan-Asia) Regulatory changes Volcker Rule impact on proprietary bank trading and liquidity in the U.S. CSA consultation papers on fiduciary duty and mutual fund fees in Canada MiFID II ability to consolidate liquidity and push volume to lit markets in Europe IOSCO consultation report on regulation of ETFs globally AIFMD impact on distribution of U.S. ETFs in Europe Market makers Demand for compensation to continue trading certain ETFs Potential impact on high-frequency trading Potential to see more boutique trading firms as regulatory changes affect traders at large brokers 21

Disclosures Commissions, management fees and expenses all may be associated with the Vanguard ETFs. This offering is only made by prospectus. Investment objectives, risks, fees, expenses, and other important information are contained in the prospectus; read it before investing. Copies are available from Vanguard Investments Canada Inc. at www.vanguardcanada.ca. ETFs are not guaranteed, their values change frequently, and past performance may not be repeated. First date of publication: April 9, 2013. Vanguard ETFs are managed by Vanguard Investments Canada Inc., an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of The Vanguard Group, Inc. Vanguard ETFs are available across Canada. This presentation is not intended to be relied upon as investment or tax advice and it is not a recommendation, offer, or solicitation to buy or sell any ETFs or to adopt any particular investment strategy or portfolio strategy. The views expressed in this presentation should not be construed as investment advice or investment research and do not take into account the particular investment objectives, needs, restrictions and circumstances of your clients or prospective investors. Information, case studies, figures, graphs and charts are designed for illustrative purposes only and are subject to change without notice. The case studies and examples in this report are designed for illustrative purposes only. Vanguard Investments Canada Inc. does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or reliability of all the information contained in these slides or any results from their use. Notes on risk: All investments, including those that seek to track indexes, are subject to risk, including the possible loss of principal. Diversification does not ensure a profit or protect against a loss in a declining market. While Vanguard ETFs are designed to be as diversified as the original indexes they seek to track and can provide greater diversification than an individual investor may achieve independently, any given ETF may not be a diversified investment. Investing in ETFs involves risk, including the risk of error in tracking the underlying index. ETFs are subject to risks similar to those of stocks. Prices of mid- and small-cap stocks often fluctuate more than those of large-company stocks. Foreign investing involves additional risks including currency fluctuations and political uncertainty. Restrictions: This material does not constitute an offer or solicitation and may not be treated as an offer or solicitation in any jurisdiction where such an offer or solicitation is against the law, or to anyone to whom it is unlawful to make such an offer or solicitation, or if the person making the offer or solicitation is not qualified to do so. No part of this material may be reproduced, distributed, disseminated, or referred to, in whole or in part, in any form, including to any investor, without prior written and express permission by Vanguard Investments Canada Inc. The slides contained on this microsite are NOT to be taken out of context from the live presentation. Slides out of context do present the potential for misinterpretation. For Financial Advisors Only. Do not distribute to Investors or Prospective Investors. 2013 Vanguard Investments Canada Inc. All rights reserved. 22