I respectfully disagree. The interviewer did a great job. I think that's the way Kathleen Moriarty is, right on the point. As far as "leading questions to support her thesis": 1. don't you think it is ok to have a thesis that the guest may support or contradict? 2. she (interviewer) pointed out that there are more ETFs than stocks, 3. She did mention the arbitrage problems, flash crashes etc 4. Considering #2 and #3, isn't it a "common sense" to have some issues with ETF world in general? As far as the answer the interviewee provided to the above (that the markets are risky and people take on risks): 1. First and foremost, don't expect ANYONE that created a monster to admit he/she created a monster. I'm not saying ETFs are that, just a general comment that it is rare for people to take on responsibility for a big scale mess they created. After all it's their "baby" and they will find any excuse to protect their reputation (work). 2. If you don't think that the current state of ETFs is distorting the markets, then watch some RVs material from last year when on many occasions, a deep analysis of ETFs reveals the problems of these vehicles and how distorting they are or can be. 3. When during the flash crash 2010 shares of well know sound companies were changing hands at $0.01 or $100.000, how's that for "markets are risky" or that people "sell into falling markets"? Granted these were programs, but the whole reason the hell breaks lose occasionally is because of this overly complicated market (too many products/derivatives)

I disagree. She did a great job. I think that's the way the interviewee is, right on the point.

Oh dear......I thought I was paying for new content!!!

I agree

What was inside info?

Lawyers didn't create the innovation; she did the paperwork, but now claims she created it because she read some legal docs.

Possibly need to qualify my comment: GLD likely has multiple claims on every ounce of underlying physical. Counterparty risk everywhere. Its a trading vehicle (and a good one) but f things get rough dont expect to be taking delivery of any gold you think you have. The lawyers will get plenty fees sorting through the claims though.. just my tuppence

Regarding your GLD redemption comment, the fact that the minimum redemption is 100,000 shares removes the redemption option for most while conveniently greatly reducing the bank's delivery default risk.

So its only backed by metal if you hold ~ $12,500000 of this instrument? ..mervellous