When looking at the assets under management (AUM) of the smallest Lipper classifications in the European ETF industry, it becomes clear that the ETFs within these classifications face the risk of getting merged or liquidated since they are too small to be profitable for their promoters.
That said, sometimes a promoter keeps an ETF alive just because it is part of a series of ETFs, and if it were closed, there would be a gap in the product offering. But besides this, there are not many reasons why an ETF promoter should keep a small ETF open if it lacks investor interest. Especially if this ETF has been around for a longer time period.
In more detail, the 10 smallest Lipper classifications in the European ETF industry by AUM combined held €104.2 million in assets under management. These AUM were split between 16 ETFs. While most classifications had only one ETF as a constituent, Alternative Currency Strategy (four), Commodity Industrial Metals (three), and Target Maturity MA EUR 2040 (two) had more than one ETF as a constituent. The smallest ETF on the list held assets of around €1.1 million, while the largest ETF on this list held €21.0 million in assets under management.
Graph 1: The 10 Smallest Lipper Global Classifications in the European ETF Industry – Assets Under Management (in million EUR) and Number of ETFs (June 30, 2025)
Source: LSEG Lipper
Even as it seems that all of the ETFs in the 10 smallest Lipper Classifications are too small to be maintained by the respective promoter, there might be some exceptions. One example for this can be seen in the three target maturity classifications on the table of the 10 smallest classifications.
These classifications are far away from their maturity dates. Therefore, it is quite unlikely that the respective ETFs will be closed since target maturity products often get popular in the later stages of their life cycle. This means the respective products are building up their track records, which might be a competitive edge in the future.
Assets Under Management and Age of ETFs as Measures for Success
Since profitability is a key measure for companies, it is fair from my point of view to assume that ETF promoters want to run ETFs that are profitable for them. In this regard, it would be good to know how many assets under management an ETF needs to be profitable.
Even though industry participants often mention 100 million euros in assets under management as a general breakeven amount, this sum may vary widely between the different ETF promoters, depending on the setup of the promoters and the ETFs themselves.
Another point that needs to be taken into consideration is the age of a given ETF, since the majority of ETFs can’t be blockbusters that gather a billion euros within the first three months after launch; they may need some time to get to their breakeven point. Even though it may appear a bit long, but I would give an ETF three years as reference period to see whether an ETF has gathered investor attention or not.
With regard to this, the majority of the ETFs within the 10 smallest Lipper classifications in the European ETF industry face the risk of being merged or liquidated in the near future. This means investors in these ETFs should be aware of this closure risk and should prepare themselves for this event. Hence, searching for other attractive investments which fit their asset allocation needs.