Hmm… Jag tror det kommer ner till konstruktionen av ETF:en som de facto är en fodran (och därmed obligation) på den som gett ut andelen. Men jag är inte 100% säker på det. Vi skulle behöva kolla det med en jurist isf.
Se framförallt deras årsredovisning 2024 förklarar det:
Xetra Gold is a zero-coupon bond broken down into units which have an indefinite term, are denominated in one gram of gold, are 100 per cent physically backed and securitise a right to delivery. Using this product, the bond holder’s economic position is intended to correspond to physical ownership of the corresponding amount of gold.
Xetra Gold is traded on Xetra, the electronic trading platform, and on various regional exchanges. This enables purchases and sales of the bond at all times during every trading day. The smallest tradeable unit of Xetra Gold is one unit, which corresponds to one gram of gold.
samt:
Xetra Gold was issued as a zero-coupon bond broken down into units with an indefinite term. It is a bearer bond that is 100 per cent backed by gold, which securitises a right to take delivery of gold (a cash payment is made if a UCITS-compliant fund is involved) and is quoted in € per gram. Two global certificates each consisting of up to 5 billion units (corresponds to a total volume of two times 5 thousand tonnes of gold) were deposited with Clearstream Banking AG.
Sedan gillar jag ju personligen att det typ inte är ett fondbolag:
Deutsche Börse Commodities GmbH is a joint venture of four banks, a stock exchange operator, an industrial partner and a banking-related holding company:
- Commerzbank AG, Frankfurt/Main (16.2 per cent)
- Deutsche Bank AG, Frankfurt/Main (16.2 per cent)
- Deutsche Börse AG, Frankfurt/Main (16.2 per cent)
- DZ BANK AG Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank Frankfurt, Frankfurt/Main (16.2 per cent)
- B. Metzler seel. Sohn & Co. AG, Frankfurt/Main (16.2 per cent)
- Umicore AG & Co. KG, Hanau (2.8 per cent)
- Vontobel Beteiligungen AG, Zurich, Switzerland (16.2 per cent)
Men, jag mejlar dem och kollar.
EDIT. Är inte så säker på att det skiljer. Läser man Amundi-prospektet (som jag lagt alldeles för mycket tid på att läsa idag) så står det på sidan 31 om “Insolvency” - enligt min subjektiva uppfattning ungefär samma sak. Citat (min fetstil):
However, notwithstanding the restrictions described in Condition 6 and the limited recourse and nonpetition provisions, should the Issuer have outstanding liabilities to third parties which it is unable to discharge or should the limited recourse or non-petition provisions be found to be unenforceable in a particular jurisdiction and as a result the Issuer becomes or is declared insolvent according to the law of any country having jurisdiction over it or any of its assets, the insolvency laws of that country may determine the validity of the claims of Securityholders and may prevent Securityholders from enforcing their rights or delay such enforcement. In particular, depending on the jurisdiction concerned and the nature of the assets and security, the security created in favour of the Security Trustee may be set aside or ranked behind certain other creditors and the assets subject to such security may be transferred to another person free of such security. This may result in fewer assets of the Issuer being available to fund amounts due to Securityholders under the ETC Securities, and, accordingly, in Securityholders receiving a lower return on their investment in the ETC Securities than they would have received but for the Issuer’s insolvency.
EDIT 2. Ju mer jag läser, desto mer lika upplever jag att de är.
EDIT 3. Från Amundi Factsheet:
The investors are exposed to the creditworthiness of the Issuer, Metal counterparty, Custodian and the Authorised Participants
