5 edited tags
| link
4 fixed typo
| link

Why would Two ETFs tracking IdentialIdentical Indexes Produce different Returns?

    Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackFinance/status/493331475371397120
3 added 223 characters in body
source | link

-- Edit -- It turns out that the RPG fund creates an index of "pure-style growth" from the S&P 500/Citigroup PURE growth index, where the IVW ETF creates an index from the S&P 500/Citigroup growth index; sorry I missed that.

I'm trying to compare ETFs using etfdb.

I saw two ETFs that track identical indexes, but both have very different returns after 5 years:

IVW 5-year return was 125.43%, with an expense ratio of 0.18%.

RPG 5-year return was 183.31%, with an expense ratio of 0.35%.

Both of these ETFs track the S&P 500/Citigroup Pure Growth Index.

I was under the impression that ETFs were passively managed, and therefor two ETFs tracking the same index would have the same return, less expense ratios. Is that an incorrect assumption--are (some) ETFs actively managed?

Is there something else that I'm not accounting for which would justify different returns for ETFS tracking identical indices?

I'm trying to compare ETFs using etfdb.

I saw two ETFs that track identical indexes, but both have very different returns after 5 years:

IVW 5-year return was 125.43%, with an expense ratio of 0.18%.

RPG 5-year return was 183.31%, with an expense ratio of 0.35%.

Both of these ETFs track the S&P 500/Citigroup Pure Growth Index.

I was under the impression that ETFs were passively managed, and therefor two ETFs tracking the same index would have the same return, less expense ratios. Is that an incorrect assumption--are (some) ETFs actively managed?

Is there something else that I'm not accounting for which would justify different returns for ETFS tracking identical indices?

-- Edit -- It turns out that the RPG fund creates an index of "pure-style growth" from the S&P 500/Citigroup PURE growth index, where the IVW ETF creates an index from the S&P 500/Citigroup growth index; sorry I missed that.

I'm trying to compare ETFs using etfdb.

I saw two ETFs that track identical indexes, but both have very different returns after 5 years:

IVW 5-year return was 125.43%, with an expense ratio of 0.18%.

RPG 5-year return was 183.31%, with an expense ratio of 0.35%.

Both of these ETFs track the S&P 500/Citigroup Growth Index.

I was under the impression that ETFs were passively managed, and therefor two ETFs tracking the same index would have the same return, less expense ratios. Is that an incorrect assumption--are (some) ETFs actively managed?

Is there something else that I'm not accounting for which would justify different returns for ETFS tracking identical indices?

2 edited body
source | link
1
source | link