Analysts are projecting a wave of consolidations on the horizon. With Claymore's now infamous shuttering of 11 smaller ETFs, even fairly well-known and established fund players obviously aren't exempt.

Funds will come and go, either merged or outright closed. But companies will be hit, too. Those trying to diversify from mutual funds and other areas of financial services increasingly are expected to face tough choices. How do they want to play off their core strengths, and how far do they want to venture into ETFs?

No doubt for providers such as Vanguard, the move into ETFs came none too soon. But what about Fidelity, the poster child for active managers, which has been heavily criticized over the years for not venturing into ETFs to any great degree?

Perhaps in the next few years, as lineups fluctuate and even fold, Fido's decision to remain largely as a mere broker will prove the stuff market-hardened corporate discipline's made of over long periods.

But consider these sobering figures heading into the year: Barclays held nearly 53% of the ETF industry's total assets. The next-closest was State Street at around 25%. Even the people's choice, Vanguard, represented just 7% of that pie. Arguably the biggest mover in pushing ETF's active envelope, PowerShares, accounted for slightly less than 5.5%.

Does that leave more room for others, such as Claymore, Van Eck, WisdomTree, Rydex and First Trust to grab a lot of new customers? I'm sure they're thinking that's the case.

Right now, one has to suspect that Vanguard appears to be in a pretty good position. After a relatively late start into ETFs, the indexing maverick has patented its rights to offer ETFs as second share classes in its mutual funds. It has already filed to do that with the likes of its TIPs fund, which is actively managed. How that will play out in equities is a different matter.

But just think of it ... what if Vanguard could clone its stable of popular active funds into the ETF world? Its low-turnover favorites with strong long-term records would no doubt sport even lower expense ratios and greater tax efficiencies in ETF formats.

How great of tax savings any real actively managed fund would have as a second share class still seems open to debate. Without taking advantage of the creation unit process, where shares are traded for stock rather than cash, might mean active ETFs from Vanguard would be only slightly more tax-efficient than their mutual-fund classes.

And how about PowerShares, which has built an enviable record in terms of tax efficiencies with portfolios that many consider the first generation of active management in ETFs? They're still quite tiny in the market, although their role as innovators is huge. What's next up their sleeve?

You know they've got to respond, and the three ETFs recently given a green light by the SEC (public hearings not included), are interesting animals. They still look and smell like quant funds. But at least one doesn't adhere to an index. Now that should be interesting to watch.

Personally, I'm going to closely watch the bond side as new actively managed portfolios hit the market. Sampling is the status quo for most bond index managers and I've always suspected that leaves the door open for underperformance against a good active manager.

Development of different types of indexing methodologies promises to bring more flexibility into bond ETFs. That actually might prove to be a good advancement, couldn't it?

Murray Coleman is managing editor of IndexUniverse.com and research director for Index Publications. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .