Tag Archives: ETF tracking error

Errors Abound When It Comes to ETF Tracking Errors

Courtesy of Dave Nadig

Here’s how I know the ETF Revolution has long since passed, and what we’re living in now is the new ETF normal: The questions from advisors are getting a lot smarter.

I used to get emails about how creation and redemption worked. Now I get questions about tracking error.

Unfortunately, most people think about tracking error all wrong.

Here’s a perfect example. Take two funds that have been in the headlines a lot these past few weeks, the Vanguard MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (NYSEArca: VWO) and the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index Fund (NYSEArca: EEM).

Now imagine you’re a Sophisticated Investor. You know a few things: You know expense ratio matters. You know spreads matter. You know tracking error matters.

So you pop up your Bloomberg, and here’s what you see:

 

 

Even on trading, Vanguard wins on expenses. But Holy Meatballs Batman, what are those guys down in Pennsylvania doing!? A tracking error of 4.433 percent?

And at this point, many advisors will make a critical mistake, assuming that the Vanguard fund is horribly mismanaged. It’s not an unreasonable assumption, if in fact this was an accurate tracking error number. But it’s not.

Remember, academic tracking error is the annualized standard deviation of daily return differences. If the index is up 1 percent today, and VWO is up 0.95 percent, well, that’s -.05 percent to add to the series. Take that whole series, plug it into your stats package, get the standard deviation, annualize it, and there you go.

There are a few reasons this is all a terrible idea. First of all, imagine that VWO was actually missing its mark by 0.05 percent, day in and day out. Well, the standard deviation of those daily differences will be zero. It’s enormously consistent. Continue reading

What Happens When an ETF Doesn’t Match its Index

Article from June 13 edition, written by Maureen Nevin Duffy

Wall Street’s creative genius never runs out of new investment strategies for another exchange-traded fund based on one index or another. But in many cases, the funds barely reflect the actual securities in the indexes to which they are tied. In fact, many ETFs hold less than 10 percent of the components of the index they are marketed as representing. And critics say the returns of ETFs with what they call major “tracking error” can vary so much from those of the index as to be misleading.

Last March the technical committee of the International Organization of Securities Commissions, an international body of securities regulators, asked its members if regulators should make ETFs explain to investors how a new fund replicates its index and the degree to which its returns may vary. The comment period runs until late June.

“How 50 to 60 issues in an ETF will track 1,000 issues in a bond index is a good question,” says James Squyres, president of Buyside Research, a Darien, Connecticut–based research firm that analyzes ETFs based on the fundamentals of the securities they own. “Why not just create a fund with 50 to 60 issues and not track any index? What does tracking an index bring to the party?”

A well-known index can give a new fund instant gravitas and prospective investors a performance record on which to base their decisions. And skillful managers can use modeling techniques to produce index-like results in a fund without holding all the index components, thus saving a bundle in inventory transaction costs. Continue reading