Ready or not, nontransparent exchange-traded funds likely will be coming soon to a brokerage near you.

In May, the Securities and Exchange Commission approved the ActiveShares structure created by Precidian Funds that enable actively managed ETFs to disclose their portfolio holdings on a quarterly basis, much like mutual funds do. Traditionally, one of the hallmarks of ETFs is their daily portfolio disclosure.

Precidian is the first to get SEC approval from among the several companies that have approached the regulator in recent years hoping to roll out structures that would let active managers launch nontransparent ETFs. The other platforms are still being reviewed by the SEC. (Aside from these newer ETF platforms, there are two existing models for nontransparent exchange-traded product structures, which are discussed below.)

The point of these nontransparent platforms is to allow asset managers to expand the distribution possibilities of their active investment strategies beyond the mutual fund world and into the fast-growing ETF space. Most active managers haven’t plied the ETF waters because they fear that showing their portfolios on a daily basis will let sophisticated investors front-run their trades and copy their proprietary strategies.

A slew of heavyweight asset managers have licensed the ActiveShares structure, and it’s thought that some, many or all of them could eventually roll out active ETFs using this platform—some as early as this year. Those companies include BlackRock, Capital Group, JP Morgan, Nationwide, Gabelli, Columbia, American Century and Nuveen. Legg Mason, another licensee, has a minority equity position in Precidian Investments, a Bedminster, N.J.-based company focused on ETF and mutual fund development.

Precidian and others within this genre hate the term “nontransparent,” claiming that ETFs with quarterly portfolio disclosures are no different than mutual funds, which aren’t called nontransparent.

Nonetheless, the name has stuck and will probably be in vogue for the foreseeable future. In that vein, it’s the term used in a recent report from Broadridge that gauged how financial advisors feel about active nontransparent ETFs.

Broadridge, a fintech company, joined forces with Q8 Research to survey 200 financial advisors across various channels who have at least $10 million in assets under management to see how familiar—and potentially receptive—they are to the ActiveShares structure.

Just 4% of advisors said they’re very familiar with ActiveShares, while 22% are somewhat familiar, 37% have heard of it but don’t know what it’s about, and 37% aren’t aware of it.

Elsewhere, 68% of respondents said they find the ActiveShares ETF concept somewhat appealing and 17% said it was very appealing. And 59% somewhat agreed with the statement that they hope their favorite active mutual funds are introduced as ActiveShares ETFs, while 24% strongly agreed with that statement.

And based on their current level of knowledge about ActiveShares, 64% of advisors said they’re likely to use an ActiveShares product only after it’s available for 12 months, while 22% said they’re likely to use them within the first 12 months. Fifteen percent said they likely won’t use them at all.

But in a potential case of robbing Abbott to pay Costello, 63% of advisors said they would most likely draw assets away from mutual funds if they invested in ActiveShares ETFs. In other words, would advisors ditch an active mutual fund they currently have in favor of its ActiveShares ETF equivalent?

Depending on the price differential between comparable mutual funds and ActiveShares ETFs (an unknown variable at this point), such trade-offs could mean less money for an asset manager who gains an ETF client but loses them on the mutual fund side where fees are generally greater versus ETFs.

But that’s pure speculation at this point. First, asset managers need to launch their ActiveShares ETFs (or products on other nontransparent platforms, if and when they’re approved). And as indicated in the Broadridge survey, the top five conditions that would build confidence in buying these products are performance track record, good liquidity and trading volume, the backing of trusted asset managers, improved understanding of these vehicles, and home office stamp of approval.

As mentioned above, there are two real-world examples of exchange-traded product structures that don’t have daily portfolio disclosures. One belongs to Vanguard, the second-largest ETF issuer, whose index-based ETFs disclose their portfolio holdings monthly with a 15-day lag. Obviously, that has been extremely successful.

The other example is the exchange-traded managed funds structure licensed by NextShares Solutions LLC, a unit of Eaton Vance Corp. NextShares funds are actively managed products that report their holdings quarterly and trade during the day relative to their end-of-day net asset value. These products first launched in 2016 and on the whole haven’t been embraced by investors, in part because they’re not available on a large number of investment platforms.

As for ActiveShares, some industry observers say they could appeal to advisors and investors who believe in active management and who like a particular asset manager who is offering these products. Like with any financial products, though, they say these nontransparent ETFs will succeed or fail based on their risk/reward performance. And having a favorable price point could help, too.