Update #2: PowerShares actively-managed ETFs will begin trading tomorrow, Friday, April 11, 2008.  

-     -     -     -     -     -

Update: I've had a chance to dig through the amended registration statement a bit more. One thing is painfully obvious--unitary fees stink. It's pretty amazing that the knuckleheads at the American Enterprise Institute have used terms like 'straightforward' to tout the unitary fee. Straightforward? Instead of being able to tell what I'm paying for--management fees vs. other vs. 12b-1--I have to decrypt contracts that are appended to the registration statement as exhibits. It's hard to imagine anything less straightforward.

Editorializing aside, I didn't have much luck in getting to the bottom of the fee structure. What I did learn is that AER--which is the sub-advisor of the AlphaQ and Alpha Multi Cap ETFs--will pull down 20 basis points of the 0.75% management fee. Invesco, which will subadvise the other two portfolios, will split the management fee 40/60 with PowerShares.

But there's nothing in the custody, admin, or transfer agency contracts that sets forth the fee schedule for those services. (Curiously, the transfer agency fee schedule appears to have been omitted from the filing for whatever reason.) So, we have no way of knowing how much of the expense ratio is management fee and how much is 'other'. Cute.

It seems like total trivia, I'm sure. But it's significant insofar as it's going to set a baseline for other managers that are bringing actively managed ETFs out. Fund boards love their 'medians' and their hyper-finessed 'peer groups', heaven knows. So, if PowerShares' actively managed ETFs act as a blueprint, there's reason to believe that we'll see fees cluster near the same level but then inch inexorably higher (see also: passively managed ETFs).

It also might give us a sense into whether, and to what degree, traditional mutual fund managers' will have their feet held to the fire. For instance, if ETF providers slap something other than bargain-basement management fees on their actively managed products, then the cost difference between actively managed ETFs and mutual funds will boil down to 'other' expenses (ETFs aren't saddled with transfer agency and other administrative expenses to the same extent as traditional funds). If that came to pass, it would relieve some of the pressure on fund managers and rubber stamp-hoisting fund boards to bring their funds' management fees down, as they could simply rationalize the pricing difference away. 

Quick hitter as I dash out the door: Late today, PowerShares amended the registration statement covering the four actively managed ETFs that it's slated to launch in the next few weeks. Here's what they'll cost:

• PowerShares Active AlphaQ (PQY): 0.75%
• PowerShares Active Alpha Multi-Cap (PQZ): 0.75%
• PowerShares Active Mega Cap (PMA): 0.75%
• PowerShares Active Low Duration (PLK): 0.29%

The expense ratios consist entirely of management fee--that is, no 12b-1 or other expenses. They'll be paying admin/custody/accounting expenses out of the management fee as part of a unitary fee structure. So, I still have to figure out what the actual management fee is going to be.

Suffice it to say that the expense ratios come in right about where you'd expect given that the 'intellidex' offerings cost 0.60%, setting a floor, and most other specialty ETFs are in the 60-95 bp range.

More to come.