Talk:Exchange-traded fund

message: Any thoughts on improving external links?  There are better resources out there for ETF Search, News etc. than exchanges.  ETFDesk.com, Yahoo Finance ETF Section, ETFConnect.com to name a few.
:Most of those sites would be in violation of the external link guidelines and have been removed in the past.  TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 03:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Is this area really needed? Where's the source?  Seems like spam to me.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.217.199.80 (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Users of ETFs

message: some links with ETF criticism to consider :
*   Five Myths of Exchange-Traded Funds
*   Exchange-Traded Funds: Beyond the Hype 
* ETF's vs Indexed Mutual Funds
* Sue Stevens in Forbes 2003
* Walter Updegrave in CNN/Money 2005
DrFunn 22:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This entry should include ETF criticism for balance

message: Hypothesis: Mutual Funds are not as Tax-Efficient due to any realize capital gains that must be distribute to their shareholders within in a given year (not sure if it is quarterly or annually). Vice Versa ETF capital gains do not need to be realized till they are redeemed however they are sold on the active market. This is assuming that at the end of the day The ETF and Mutual Fund NAV are about / near equal in value.
This study can really only be compared for Passively Manage Mutual Funds i.e. (Index funds, Passive Asset-Class Funds, and Passive Sector Funds)
to their ETF counterparts however the following comparison if they exist can be further defined into the following categories.
No-Load Mutual Fund to No-load ETF (doubt that the No-Load ETF exist) 
Load Mutual Fund to Load ETF (doubt that the Loaded Passive Mutual fund
exist)
No-Load Mutual Fund to load ETF (Realistic)
Loaded Mutual Fund to No-Load ETF (extremely unlikely to occur)
As for Actively Manage Mutual Funds unless otherwise proven not to
utilized market timing (highly unlikely) should not even be consider in
this study.
Additional things that should be considered & analyze are:
*Brokerage / Commission fees that is incurred for entry and exiting.
*Expense Ratio if any
*The amount being invested is a large amount in increments of
$10,000.00 (amount is open)
*Automatic Dividend Reinvestment fee if required
Restrictions that are imposed on study:
*No Limit Order
*No Buying on Margin
*No Short Selling
*No Stop-Loss Order imposed
*Tax-Loss Harvesting if incurred is a result of the Mutual fund’s & ETF’s Fund Manager not the Broker in question
:Paul.Paquette (talk)  02:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: - Jaysbro 16:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encylopedia! The aim of the article should be to present facts as established and held as consensus.  The facts should be relevant to the subject at hand and appropriate to a global audience.  Trying to answer this type of question is futile!  The answer will at best be subjective, geographically limited and tempory; at worst it will be a gross simplification and misleading.  If you wish to add facts then cite your sources.  The answer to this type of question will almost always be someones POV. simonthebold 10:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pointless postulating

message: This article appears to define ETFs too narrowly.  In its broadest definition an ETF is any financial instrument that is traded on a secondary market, that represents a basket of underlying securities.  This includes certain actively managed investment companies (for example Closed-ended Funds and Investment Trusts).
The confusion lies, of course, in the fact that the term was invented for a certain type of open-ended passively managed fund and later broadened to encompass the older closed-ended variety.
BaseTurnComplete 18:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of ETF too narrow? 

message: ETFs are not by definition closed-ended.  This is just plain wrong.  They are open-ended: shares are routinely created and cancelled to match supply and demand for the fund. However the mechanism by which they are created and cancelled is different to other open-ended funds. BaseTurnComplete 14:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closed-Ended 

message: The first sentence is not exactly correct, "Exchange-traded funds (or ETFs) are open ended mutual funds that can be traded at any time throughout the course of the day."  ETF's can't be traded "any time" they can only be traded during market hours, but the reason it is worth addressing is because the ETF's have different market hours than other stocks. Most (but not all) ETF's in the USA are traded from 9:30am to 4:15pm, 15 minutes longer than regular stocks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.124.36.198 (talk) 03:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trading Hours

message: February 18, 2008 18:53 (ETFguide) The current version of "ETFs Compared" section looks at ETFs from three key perspectives; costs, taxation, and trading. However, it omits two other important aspects of comparing ETFs; by indexing strategy and by active strategies.
Here's a pratical suggestion:
With regard to indexing strategies, there's traditional indexes which typically use a market capitalization weighting formula, fundamentally weighted indexes that use specific financial metrics like dividends or earnings as a weighting, and equally weighted indexes that assign the same weighting for all index components. In comparing ETFs, it's important that these distinctions be made. It's also important to underscore that not all index ETFs are necessarily passive.
The latter (active strategies) can be added later when full fledged active ETFs become available. They can be compared in the context of active ETFs vs. active mutual funds, closed end funds, etc. They can also be compared vs. index ETFs.
Another possible location for the discussion of "indexing strategies" and "active strategies" is in the "Investment Strategies" section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etfguide (talk • contribs) 00:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving the "ETFs Compared" section 

message: February 21, 2008 (ETFguide) Here's the ETF link that certain participants of Wikipedia have a prejudice against:
http://www.etfguide.com/etfeducation.htm
If you carefully read the Education link above, you'll notice that its not propoganda or spam as has been asserted. Read the link for yourself. It contains a careful consideration of relevant topics like "ETFs vs. Stocks", "ETFs vs. Mutual Funds", "Understanding ETF Tables in the Newspaper", "History of ETFs", etc. This qualifies as "ETF Education" - as I've indicated to the deaf ears that peruse these quarters.
A "commercial" Website is any place that accepts money in exchange for advertising, which cleary, Yahoo Finance, About.com, MSN Money and theStreet.com are ALL doing. 
If we use Montco's convoluted standard of "commercial" or "spam" that would pre-clude all of these Websites from being listed as external links on Wikipedia - because they are all "commercial" in nature. At one point, Montco wasn't even sure about his/her own Editorial policies, as he eliminated "TheStreet.com" link because it was "commerical", only to have someone else re-install it.
The Editorial standard for external links - isn't whether the Websites in question accept advertising or are "commercial", but whether they add value to Wikipedia's "Exchange-traded fund" page. 
The issue of "Non-notable site" was raised by Ohnoitsjamie. 
Further investigation reveals that the source I've recommended is indeed "notable". For example, both ETF Centers at Charles Schwab and Scottrade are using data from the ETFguide.com source. (see Scottrade link) http://research.scottrade.com/public/etf/news/news.asp
I deduce these "notable" brokers would not be using "non-notable" Websites or dubious sources for their ETF data, do you? 
From the recommended changes I've suggested and the new edits I've already made - it should be clearly evident that I want the Wikipedia Exchange-traded fund to be the best and most definitive source on the topic. This is an idea which some Wiki Editors seem opposed to.
From viewing my Edits and suggestions I'm well-versed on the subject of exchange-traded funds and I remind you of this, not to flaunt, but to help you appreciate my perspective. 
We understand that Wikipedia isn't a collection of external links. At the same time, this doesn't give it the right to be a junkyard of stale references. 
There are other high level sources or external links that the Exchange-traded fund page is lacking. I would also argue the listing of About.com as a link of "ETF Basics" is laughable. Not only is it loaded with advertising and silly keyword advertisements, but it's not an authority on the subject of ETFs.
It seems to me that industry sources close to the ETF business, like the AMEX, the Securities and Exchange Commission and sources exclusively dedicated to the topic, are the best reference points. I would qualify my suggested external link as such.
Dismissing relevant external links and citing Wikipedia rules is bureaucratic and will assure this page almost certain oblivion and lack of usefulness.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.215.209 (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And what does the link add?  Nothing.  You yourself have added content to the article and that's great.  We think it would be great if you would add content.  But the link adds no content to the encyclopedia.  Zero.  All it does is add a link.  The point of the encyclopedia is to provide content, not to drive traffic to your site so that they can read more and sign up for a 30-day free trial to your ETF news letter.  Montco (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text: FYI, Montco you don't determine what gets added or deleted from the Encyclopedia and neither do I. Your characterization of my contributions as seeking to "drive more traffic to a Website" are baseless. As I've indicated in the note above, you know, the one you didn't read - I've recommended the removal of the About.com link, the addition of ETFguide.com and I also think adding more industry related links versus having advertising hubs with keyword ads that happen to have casual ETF data as "lead ETF sources." The forward progress of this page will happen with or without you. You've been "protecting" this page to the detriment of Wikipedia users.[User:ETFguide ]] 22 February 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etfguide (talk • contribs) 18:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I understand both sides of the arguement and I've looked at the link, which appears to have good and related ETF information. robot126  —Preceding comment was added at 12:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Relevant External Links 

message: This article is a great resource for showing the diverse world of ETFs.  But we need to think about how we are going to organize all this material.  Right now the bulk of the article consists of ETF listings.  While these listings are important, this structure is going to make less and less sense.  ETFs are diversifying at a stunning rate.  Listing all the ETFs here will soon be scarely easier and about as sensible as listing hundreds of stocks on the stock article.  So I'm just posing an open question to my fellow wikipedians: how should we structure this article to accommodate growth? --Greg Comlish (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Structure and Direction: Do we list EVERY etf? 

message: I have deleted the following sections, which are unsourced, as part of a general move toward upgrading this article.  (To avoid confusion, I have changed the headings to bold.)  Much of the information is inaccurate or of low quality, but certainly some of it should be put back in the article if it can be adequately sourced.  John M Baker (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced sections 

message: It isn't perfect, but I think it's good enough now to be an actual resource, and most of the bad information is gone.  I'm going to slow down, but if people have questions about the article or its subject matter, I'll be available.  John M Baker (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Current status

message: EFTs are clearly similar to Index (tracker) funds. It would be great if someone explained the difference. --Timtak (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the discussion now in text help?  The short answer is that they are the same thing:  Some index funds are mutual funds, and some are ETFs.  John M Baker (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I assume by "FOF" you mean a fund of funds.  Conventional index funds and index ETFs generally are not thought of as funds of funds, although they technically could be if there were funds that were among the securities comprising the underlying index.  Anyway, this is not a distinction between index ETFs and conventional index funds.  John M Baker (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: DIfference to Index Funds

message: I would like to help but don't even know where to start. ETFs are all over the business/finance press and the market is growing tremendously. It's an important subject. This article needs organization, it should be compressed, it can benefit from some visuals. Can we create some "segmentation" of relevant information so it can be digested by the reader? If we have organization and segmentation perhaps we can get rid of the redundant, irrelevant information? Is there a particular task here I can help with? Influencenyc (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some visuals would absolutely be great.  I haven't really looked into what might be available.  What did you have in mind on segmentation and organization?  It might be better to talk about those here, before implementing them on the article page.  John M Baker (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Segmentation & Organization

message: I've deleted the section below, previously entitled "An aparent [sic] ETF fail," from the main article.  It was provided without sources, and it isn't clear just what it's saying.  For readability, I've reformatted the heading to bold.  John M Baker (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dividend payments section 

message: There is no section on the security of ETF's, and what happens should investment company selling them should go bankcrupt.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtak (talk • contribs) 14:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Security

message: I believe it would be better if this article were to contain information regarding the creation, construction and management of ETFs. See here, for example: http://finance.yahoo.com/etf/education/01   and here too: http://finance.yahoo.com/etf/education/05 --137.186.228.13 (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a shame those articles are anonymous.  It is not clear what editorial fact checking goes into them, so it is hard to write their assertions into this article.  However, I for one would support you if you added those links to the article.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK --- will try. You know, it's interesting that a unit of an ETF is created when bought and destroyed when sold.  It's also interesting that the price of an ETF has nothing to do with supply and demand of that ETF --- the price is solely determined by the price of the securities it tracks. I will try to find verifiable sources that explain these phenomena. --137.186.201.86 (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See here: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/mutualfund/05/062705.asp  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.201.86 (talk) 05:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation 

message: Are the proxy voting disclosure rules the same for ETFs as for mutual funds?
(i.e. filing something like an N-PX form with the SEC to let shareholders know how proxy votes were voted on the underlying stocks?)  Are there any sites like http://www.fundvotes.com/ that review ETF voting practices so people can find an investment that votes their money according to their values? --NealMcB (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ETFs organized as open-end management investment companies (the large majority) are subject to the Form N-PX filing requirement.  I don't know about aggregating web sites.  ETFs organized as unit investment trusts, or UITs, are not subject to this requirement.  There are only a few of these, but they tend to be large, such as the SPDR Trust.  John M Baker (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proxy voting disclosure rules? 

message: "ETFs are almost always compared to no-load funds, for the simple reason that, compared to loaded funds, there is no comparison" mike40033 (talk) 06:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, ETFs technically are no-load funds, since they don't charge a load.  Retail investors do have to pay a brokerage commission, but that's far less than a load would be.  Are you getting at something more than that?  John M Baker (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the... 

message: ===Leveraged ETFs===
The following was deleted:
The rebalancing of leveraged ETFs may have considerable costs when markets are volatile. The problem is that the fund manager incurs trading losses because he needs to buy when the index goes up and sell when the index goes down in order to maintain a fixed leverage ratio. A 2.5% daily change in the index will for example reduce value of a -2x bear fund by about 0.18% per day, which means that about a third of the fund may be wasted in trading losses within a year(0.9982^252=0.63). Investors may however circumvent this problem by buying futures directly, accepting a varying leverage ratio.
I have undone the deltion. If someone disputes this, please explain. Espen Sirnes (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand recent press on this issue, the cause is the volatility. Each time the market fell, bull funds lost money when it closed out its options, which apparently they do every few days. Similarly, I am told that each time the market rises, bear funds lost money, even though the market eventually came back down again. I don't know if Wikipedia adequately covers this phenomenon yet, but perhaps it should, in the Index fund#Enhanced indexing section. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of ETFs 

message: The following was deleted:
The rebalancing of leveraged ETFs may have considerable costs when markets are volatile. The problem is that the fund manager incurs trading losses because he needs to buy when the index goes up and sell when the index goes down in order to maintain a fixed leverage ratio. A 2.5% daily change in the index will for example reduce value of a -2x bear fund by about 0.18% per day, which means that about a third of the fund may be wasted in trading losses within a year(0.9982^252=0.63). Investors may however circumvent this problem by buying futures directly, accepting a varying leverage ratio.
I have undone the deltion. If someone disputes this, please explain. Espen Sirnes (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand recent press on this issue, the cause is the volatility. Each time the market fell, bull funds lost money when it closed out its options, which apparently they do every few days. Similarly, I am told that each time the market rises, bear funds lost money, even though the market eventually came back down again. I don't know if Wikipedia adequately covers this phenomenon yet, but perhaps it should, in the Index fund#Enhanced indexing section. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Leveraged ETFs

message: Below are returns on the OBX index of the Oslo Stock exchange and associated bear and bull funds (time series are available from Oslo Stock Exchange ) October 17th - February 19th:
Fund      	Return
OBX:      	0%
XACT Bull:	-21%
XACT Bear:	-33%
DNB Bull: 	-21%
DNB Bear: 	-35%
As we see the OBX happened to be the same at the start and the end of this particular period, all though it fluctuated a lot in between. The losses on the leveraged ETFs are however too large to be explained by trading costs and fees. 
Espen Sirnes (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand recent press on this issue, the cause is the volatility. Each time the market fell, bull funds lost money when it closed out its options, which apparently they do every few days. Similarly, I am told that each time the market rises, bear funds lost money, even though the market eventually came back down again. I don't know if Wikipedia adequately covers this phenomenon yet, but perhaps it should, in the Index fund#Enhanced indexing section. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Empirical evidence

message: A couple of years ago I thought to trade the USO Oil security.  Much to my surprise the next year I got a tax bill K-1, etc. after my 1040 had been completed.
To help unsuspecting investors there should be a section explaining how this comes about.
There should also be words that tell what holding period would cause such a liability to happen. (Only one of my trades triggered a tax liability)
I am sending this writing to the SEC as I feel ETF descriptions should be more forthcoming and plainly state whether they are could incur tax liability as this is not prominently stated at present in my opinion.
The only quick way to save oneself from this trap is to buy and sell ETNs which of course are notes of the issuer and thus have more risk.
I do not post in Wiki very often and if suggestions are in order I welcome them.  Pugetkid (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to include info regarding tax issues with ETFs, we would need independent reliable sources discussing the issues. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tax Issues with ETFs 

message: I think the criticism section is overstated. The criticism apply to ETFs that track narrow or exotic marekts; the criticsms don't apply to ETFs that track broad markets like SnP 500, russell 2000 etc
Since for the avg investor, broad index funds are appropriat, this criticism is really a vieled criticasm of how the industry has created all the exotic ETFs not to "help' investors, but to generate fees and comissions for the ifnancial industry, in the same way that the proliferation of mutual funds does nothing but genreate fees for the industry from ordinary investors.Cinnamon colbert (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: criticsm overstated

message: I have a PhD in molecular biology, and I know how hard it is to write simply. Having said that, I think there is way, way to much jargon in this article, given that wiki is supposed to be an encyclopedia for the mythical avg person. Eg,
" ETFs offer public investors an undivided interest in a pool of securities and other assets and thus "
what on earth is an undivided interest and why do I care ?
I might add, that for many investors, the sole features of interest in an ETF are the total costs vs mutual funds, and the tax costs; aside from this, most of the "features" such as the ability to trade every 5 minutes, are not actually features that benefit the investor, but features that either benefit the industry or professionals
That is, if you know anything about investing, you know that for most people, the more you trade, the more likely you are to loose money (after all, every trade is a trade, so one of you has to be wrong !!)
thus, any "feature" that encourages any sort of trading is, actually, bad for the investor, but good for the industry, since there is almost always a fee associated with the trade.Cinnamon colbert (talk) 03:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Lot of jargon

message: I am not an editor, and did not see how to create a new talk page section.
This wiki could be more complete regarding the issuers of ETF's.
Here is a list of the top 50 issuers with corresponding assets under management (AUM)
http://www.indexuniverse.com/sections/etf-league-tables/14433-etf-league-table-as-of-sept-5-2012.html
Issuer 	AUM ($, mm) 	Net Flows ($, mm) 	% of AUM
BlackRock 	500,682.00 	213.55 	0.04%
SSgA 	300,268.22 	-1,400.86 	-0.47%
Vanguard 	220,575.20 	40.27 	0.02%
Invesco PowerShares 	73,026.69 	1.64 	0.00%
Van Eck 	25,309.66 	85.52 	0.34%
ProShares 	22,369.46 	-56.12 	-0.25%
WisdomTree 	15,823.67 	2.32 	0.01%
Guggenheim 	11,455.32 	47.16 	0.41%
First Trust 	7,734.83 	5.13 	0.07%
PIMCO 	7,277.25 	17.85 	0.25%
Charles Schwab 	7,229.98 	4.90 	0.07%
Barclays Capital 	7,153.13 	37.25 	0.52%
Direxion 	6,102.13 	-8.95 	-0.15%
JPMorgan 	5,123.98 	0.00 	0.00%
ALPS 	4,161.99 	29.41 	0.71%
ETF Securities 	4,097.19 	0.00 	0.00%
US Commodity Funds 	3,135.83 	0.00 	0.00%
Northern Trust 	1,306.24 	0.00 	0.00%
UBS 	1,303.82 	0.00 	0.00%
Merrill Lynch 	1,270.02 	0.00 	0.00%
Global X 	1,253.76 	8.32 	0.66%
Emerging Global Shares 	718.36 	2.31 	0.32%
VelocityShares 	676.71 	3.17 	0.47%
AdvisorShares 	655.51 	5.38 	0.82%
IndexIQ 	545.99 	0.00 	0.00%
GreenHaven 	504.83 	0.00 	0.00%
Pacer Financial 	425.90 	0.00 	0.00%
Credit Suisse 	398.36 	-1.18 	-0.30%
Russell 	274.38 	0.00 	0.00%
Precidian 	187.17 	0.00 	0.00%
Fidelity 	182.43 	0.00 	0.00%
RBS Securities 	177.52 	7.91 	4.46%
Deutsche Bank 	147.29 	0.00 	0.00%
Teucrium 	104.46 	-2.18 	-2.08%
Jefferies 	79.57 	0.00 	0.00%
Goldman Sachs 	77.13 	0.00 	0.00%
Exchange Traded Concepts 	71.22 	0.94 	1.31%
FFCM 	56.80 	0.00 	0.00%
Morgan Stanley 	30.81 	0.00 	0.00%
Columbia 	25.45 	0.00 	0.00%
Pax World 	19.02 	0.00 	0.00%
BNP Paribas 	17.14 	0.00 	0.00%
Factor Advisor 	15.61 	0.00 	0.00%
Arrow Investment Advisors 	13.40 	0.00 	0.00%
Huntington Strategy Shares 	12.51 	0.00 	0.00%
CitiGroup 	5.63 	0.00 	0.00%  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.60.43.16 (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a copyright notice at the bottom of the web page you cited. I think it would be a good idea to list the top ten, without the figures but saying that they are in decreasing order of AUM. The article is big already. There is a section titled "Issuers of ETFs". Wildfowl (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Issuers of ETFs

message: "Only authorized participants,", " actually buy", "and then only". Already in the second paragraph this article seems like it's trying to sell something to me. 88.152.128.228 (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That is unfortunate. The paragraph is really trying to explain one of the key differences between ETFs and other investment funds, and that is that retail investors do *not* buy units directly from the fund. It goes on to explain who does invest in the funds, and how those units end up in the hands of retail investors. Perhaps so much detail does not belong in the lede. Feel free to propose better ways for the article to achieve its goals. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of neutral Language 

message: This page says that "Most ETFs track an index". What does it mean to "track an index"? What it sounds like to me is that ETFs trade fake, valueless notes that are artificially priced to some reference asset. Is that what "track" means? Please explain it further, or in a different way, in the definition. 73.231.102.229 (talk) 06:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does "track" mean in this context? 

message: The article says when the share price is temporarily above NAV, it gives arbitrageurs incentive to purchase additional creative units and sell the component ETF shares in the open market. Isn't it supposed to be other way round? Sell creative units and purchase component shares?--Pranav Varma 07:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrageurs incentive 

message: This term is used by WSJ and some research firms: here. Slavic frontier (talk) 09:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exchange-Traded Portfolios 

message: Home use 197.215.21.250 (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  exchange traded portfolios 

message: — Assignment last updated by xiaoqian quan (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP23 - Sect 201 - Thu