Group 1 - Low-cost ETFs require revenue generation to cover costs, leading to regular ETF closures due to insufficient assets [1] - A significant percentage of ETFs are at risk of closure, but investors typically do not lose their investments upon closure [1][2] - For each high-closure-risk ETF, there are usually larger, more viable alternatives available [2] Group 2 - Upon the decision to delist or liquidate an ETF, a prospectus supplement will announce the last trading date and liquidation date [3] - The fund will halt creations and prepare to convert to cash, causing performance divergence from the underlying index [3][4] - Indicative net asset value (iNAV) will continue to be published, and it is advisable to sell shares before the last trading day [4] Group 3 - Liquidation typically results in cash distributions equal to NAV, making it less cumbersome than delisting [5] - If an ETF delists without liquidating, investors must trade over the counter, which is generally more complicated and costly [6] Group 4 - ETF closures can lead to reputation risk for advisors, as recommending a fund that closes can result in difficult conversations with clients [7] - Reinvestment risk arises when an ETF delists or liquidates, requiring investors to find new investment opportunities for their cash-equivalent NAV [7]

Core Insights - Aon's 2025 Cyber Risk Report indicates that cyber events causing reputation risks can lead to an average 27% decline in shareholder value, emphasizing the financial and reputational stakes of cyber risk [1][3][7] - The report builds on Aon's 2023 findings, which noted a 9% decline in shareholder value from major cyber incidents over the following year, and analyzes over 1,400 global cyber events to identify the most damaging types of attacks [2][3] Cyber Risk Management - Cyber risk is increasingly recognized as a boardroom issue, necessitating proactive risk mitigation strategies to avoid reputational and financial fallout from cyber events [3][4] - The report highlights the challenge of managing uninsurable risks, with reputation risk being largely nontransferable, underscoring the need for effective crisis response [3][5] Key Findings - Of the 1,414 cyber events analyzed, 56 evolved into reputation risk events, which are characterized by significant media attention and measurable declines in share price [7] - Companies facing reputation risk events experienced an average decline of 27% in shareholder value, with malware and ransomware attacks being responsible for 60% of these events despite constituting only 45% of total cyber incidents [7] - Five critical drivers for value recovery were identified: preparedness, leadership, swift action, communication, and change [7]