基金研究系列之一：缓冲型ETF国内实践探索

Report Industry Investment Rating - Not provided in the given content Core Viewpoints - The report systematically evaluates the product design, implementation, risks, and governance of buffered ETFs, aiming to offer a set of auditable pilot suggestions for fund managers, channels, and regulators. Buffered ETFs use a four - leg option strategy to limit downside and cap upside, with their key being a dynamic reinvestment path determined by market snapshots, option pricing, and execution on reset days [1][3]. - In China, a gradual pilot strategy for buffered ETFs is recommended, starting with "quasi - buffered" products based on broad - based ETFs or futures, and large public funds with market - making and hedging capabilities should take the lead. The long - term value of buffered ETFs depends on the issuer's hedging ability, market - maker sustainability, and regulatory cooperation [3]. Summary by Directory 1. Introduction - Traditional "60/40" stock - bond portfolios failed in 2022, leading investors to seek a "third - type asset". The report focuses on buffered ETFs, aiming to explore their localization in the Chinese ETF market and provide decision - making references for relevant parties [10]. - Buffered ETFs use derivatives to limit downside and upside in each outcome period. The report will detail key engineering issues such as the four - leg option strategy, reset days, and the difference between price return and total return [11]. 1.1 Product Design Goals and Constraints - "Spot" in buffered ETFs and similar products can be various assets. The difference between price return and total return affects dividend handling, liquidity, and tax treatment, and should be clearly disclosed [12][13]. 1.2 Buffered ETF Four - Leg Strategy - A typical buffered ETF consists of four option positions: buying deep in - the - money calls, buying at - the - money puts, selling out - of - the - money puts, and selling out - of - the - money calls. Each leg has its own engineering purpose, Greek - letter characteristics, and practical points [14][17]. 1.3 Pricing Balance Formula and Cap's Endogeneity - The design of buffered ETFs requires a "zero - cost structure". The formula for premium balance is Premium(Short OTM Call)=Premium(Long ATM Put)−Premium(Short OTM Put). The Cap is determined by market variables such as implied volatility, volatility skew, interest rates, etc., and is an endogenous result of market conditions [18]. 1.4 Product's Reset Day - The reset day is crucial. FLEX options, which allow customization of contract elements, are used. Key factors to consider on the reset day include contract specifications, settlement and underlying types, market - making and liquidity risks, pricing sources and model assumptions, margin and cash requirements, execution strategies, and scenario - based backtesting [25][27]. 1.5 Impact of Price Return Index - Option pricing and settlement in buffered ETFs are often based on price return indexes, not total return indexes. This means investors forgo dividend cash - flows, which can significantly drag down long - term returns. The net long - term drag can be calculated as Net Long - Term Drag ≈ Expense Ratio + Dividend Yield − Net Option Carry [28][31]. 1.6 Scenario - Based Stress Testing - Stress testing is essential for buffered ETFs due to their high dependence on reset - day market conditions, non - linearity in tail events, and potential margin and liquidity risks. Different types of stress - testing scenarios include historical replay, parametric scenarios, stochastic Monte Carlo simulation, and reverse stress testing [32][35]. 2. Outcome Period Mechanism and Intra - Period Trading Path 2.1 Outcome Period and Reset - Buffered ETFs have a defined outcome period, and the Buffer and Cap are locked at the start of each period. The length of the period affects cash - flow, hedging, and investor exposure. The reset process involves market snapshots, option selection, and contract settlement. Only buying on the first day of the period and holding to maturity can ensure the promised returns [39][42]. 2.2 Intra - Period Trading Complexity - Intra - period trading in buffered ETFs is complex, with returns determined by option layouts and Greek - letter exposures. To reduce risks, measures such as pre - trading visualization, setting hedging frequencies, formulating liquidity and execution strategies, and providing clear disclosures are recommended [43][46]. 3. Overseas Market Competition and Product Line Differentiation 3.1 Mainstream Issuer Strategy Comparison - Major issuers in the overseas market have different strategies. Innovator ETFs is a pioneer with a full product line; First Trust is a channel giant; AllianzIM focuses on innovative reset periods; Pacer ETFs combines trends with buffering; and iShares is a price - cutter [49][52]. 3.2 Tabular Stratification of Buffer Depth and Product Line - Products are classified into different buffer - depth categories: moderate buffer, deep buffer, and principal protection, each with typical parameters, target investors, use scenarios, and risk - control points [53][55]. 3.3 Strategy Comparison, Stratification Logic, and Issuance Suggestions - Issuers should consider their capabilities, channels, and regulatory compliance when designing products. In China, large public funds, comprehensive brokerage asset managers, and small technology - driven asset managers are likely candidates to issue buffered ETFs, and a step - by - step pilot strategy is recommended [56][58]. 4. Buffered ETF Market Analysis - In the US, the rise of buffered ETFs is due to macro - environment, market infrastructure, distribution networks, and tax and regulatory factors. In China, there is demand for such products, but implementation faces challenges, and a gradual pilot approach is needed [59][62]. 5. Comparison of Buffered ETFs and Snowball - Type Structured Products - Buffered ETFs and snowball - type products differ in terms of issuance, structure and counter - party risk, liquidity, transparency, return and cost, and investor suitability. Buffered ETFs are more suitable for institutional and retail clients seeking transparency and tradability, while snowball - type products are for high - net - worth individuals [63][67]. 6. Conclusion - Buffered ETFs transform institutional risk - management techniques into standardized products, offering downside protection at the cost of giving up potential high - end returns. They are suitable for investors who understand their complexity but may be a long - term wealth drag for those blindly seeking "capital preservation" [68].