We have been discussing for quite some time the challenges facing the ETF industry. In part driven by a rush for shelf space the leading players in the industry are creating ever more niche-like products and a slew of me-too competitors. The question is whether the industry is sacrificing the clarity of their investment story in exchange for a rush to market share.

Diya Gullapalli in the Wall Street Journal acknowledges some concerns that exchange traded funds have "drifted too far from their roots." While the industry rushes to introduce more funds in narrower niches some analysts are taking note.

Some issuers concede the trend could be going too far. "I do wonder sometimes if we're getting too niche on certain things," says Jim Ross, a senior managing director at State Street Global Advisors. State Street's SPDR 500 Trust (which stands for Standard & Poor's Depositary Receipts) has been tracking the S&P 500-stock index since 1993 and is the oldest and biggest ETF.

Investors are "better sticking to broad styles," says Gus Sauter, chief investment officer at Vanguard Group, a mutual-fund company that specializes in index funds. Vanguard itself has some ETFs, which are created as share classes of its broad index funds. "We're probably closer to the end of our ETF development than the beginning," says Mr. Sauter. The firm saw its ETF assets almost double last year to $11.3 billion but launched only three new products, all internationally focused.

This rush for shelf space continues to entice smaller firms to launch their own ETFs. Jen Ryan in the Wall Street Journal reports on some of the firms trying to nudge their way into the ETF marketplace. One upside is that these firms are often the first movers in terms of introducing novel products.

Ann Davis also in the Wall Street Journal looks at the implications of the soon-to-launch silver ETF. The challenge for investors is analyzing whether the launch will be the last gasp in this extraordinary move upwards, or simply a waypost in a long-term bull market.

Greg Newton at Naked Shorts has an article up on Morningstar's decision to extend their ranking system to ETFs. Newton notes the "random volatility" that can happen to star-ratings based solely on how the funds are categorized. Even Morningstar acknowledges the limitations of their fund ranking system.

Random Roger pointed to the previous article, and weighs in on the concept as well. Roger thinks the backward-looking, quantitative system is nearly "worthless" and longs for some forward-looking analysis.

You can also check out this earlier post that discusses how some investment advisors might be misuing ETFs in their portfolios.

This content, which contains security-related opinions and/or information, is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in any manner as professional advice, or an endorsement of any practices, products or services. There can be no guarantees or assurances that the views expressed here will be applicable for any particular facts or circumstances, and should not be relied upon in any manner. You should consult your own advisers as to legal, business, tax, and other related matters concerning any investment.

The commentary in this “post” (including any related blog, podcasts, videos, and social media) reflects the personal opinions, viewpoints, and analyses of the Ritholtz Wealth Management employees providing such comments, and should not be regarded the views of Ritholtz Wealth Management LLC. or its respective affiliates or as a description of advisory services provided by Ritholtz Wealth Management or performance returns of any Ritholtz Wealth Management Investments client.

References to any securities or digital assets, or performance data, are for illustrative purposes only and do not constitute an investment recommendation or offer to provide investment advisory services. Charts and graphs provided within are for informational purposes solely and should not be relied upon when making any investment decision. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The content speaks only as of the date indicated. Any projections, estimates, forecasts, targets, prospects, and/or opinions expressed in these materials are subject to change without notice and may differ or be contrary to opinions expressed by others.

Please see disclosures here.

Please see the Terms & Conditions page for a full disclaimer.