Conclusion: Careful selection of ETFs remains crucial. The "Fubon China Policy Financial Bond ETF" (Ticker: 00718B) under Fubon Investment Trust will terminate trading and enter liquidation procedures on June 18 due to its size not meeting standards. Recently, several ETFs, including the Fubon China Investment Grade Bond ETF (00784B), the Fuhwa Subordinated Financial Bond ETF (00790B), and the Shin Kong S&P Electric Vehicle ETF (00925), have announced trust termination, raising concerns among investors. Although the investment logic behind these ETFs appears reasonable, they have still been eliminated from the market, prompting questions about what investors can learn.

First, ETFs are not guaranteed to succeed just because they target the right assets. The investment logic for these four ETFs seems valid; however, their success depends not only on the target but also on the resonance with the investors' understanding, willingness to hold, and continuous participation. No matter how good a product is, if it cannot persuade the market, it is destined to fail.

Second, smaller funds equate to a higher risk of closure. Current regulations in Taiwan dictate that if an ETF's average net asset value falls below a regulatory threshold for 30 consecutive trading days (1 billion NT for equity funds, 2 billion NT for bond funds), it will trigger termination clauses and initiate delisting processes. The aforementioned ETFs faced a lack of investor participation, resulting in inadequate capital flow, which ultimately led to their delisting.

Third, bonds do not equal low risk. The core issue with Fuhwa's Subordinated Financial Bond is that, while it claims to provide 'stable income,' it is exposed to interest rate and default risks. Additionally, long-term bonds are particularly sensitive to interest rate changes, and subordinated bonds rank lower in case of defaults, making many investors unaware of these risks. The stereotypical view in the Taiwanese market regards bonds as 'safe, fixed-income' investments, which can lead to losses in an environment of rising US interest rates.

Fourth, a high level of sensitivity and alertness is necessary when dealing with assets related to China. The delisting of ETFs such as 00784B, 00925, and 00718B illustrates a clear trend: where an ETF's components are associated with China, Taiwanese investors tend to 'vote with their feet,' avoiding such investments despite nominal low risks.

Fifth, the distribution and brand effect of ETFs are more important than expected. Both 00790B and 00925 were issued by smaller investment firms with limited promotional resources. In contrast to major issuers like Cathay and Yuanta, which possess vast distribution and media power, smaller firms, even with the right themes and sound designs, often fail to gain the initial traction needed in the market, resulting in being marginalized.

In an era of information overload, the fate of these ETFs serves as a reminder: Investing in ETFs is not a 'buy and forget' process. Even passive investment requires active thought and vigilance.