Investing

Add as a preferred source on Google

IWD and IWF Returns Diverged by 10.48 Percentage Points in October

Net asset value returns through Oct. 30 showed a 4.37% gain for IWD and a 6.10% decline for IWF.

Updated 2 min read
Pedestrians pass the New York Stock Exchange on Broad Street in Lower Manhattan on a clear autumn afternoon. (AI-generated image / EconoTimes)
Pedestrians pass the New York Stock Exchange on Broad Street in Lower Manhattan on a clear autumn afternoon. (AI-generated image / EconoTimes)

The iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF (IWD) outpaced the iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) by 10.48 percentage points in October through the Oct. 30 market close.

IWD posted a 4.37% NAV total return for October, compared with a 6.10% loss for IWF. Rounding explains the difference: the unrounded calculation puts IWD’s advantage at 10.48 percentage points, while the displayed figures differ by 10.47 percentage points. NAV total return measures fund performance using net asset value, rather than quoted share prices alone. The measurement period ended Oct. 30 at 4 p.m. ET (20:00 UTC).

A fund’s monthly result reflects the change between its cumulative return readings at Sept. 30 and Oct. 30, rather than subtraction of the year-to-date figures. IWD’s year-to-date NAV total return stood at 19.11% on Sept. 30 and 24.32% on Oct. 30. IWF was up 6.15% year to date at Sept. 30, then down 0.33% by Oct. 30. Using those displayed year-to-date figures, IWD’s lead widened from 12.96 percentage points at September-end to 24.65 percentage points at October-end.

IWD tracks the Russell 1000 Value Index; IWF tracks the Russell 1000 Growth Index. For its value measure, Russell uses book-to-price; its growth benchmark draws on projected earnings growth and historical sales-per-share growth. These definitions describe the benchmarks’ focus but do not explain why the funds had different October returns.

Market-value weights for information technology were 19.35% in IWD and 54.83% in IWF at Oct. 30. The holdings figures establish a difference in sector mix, but provide no cause for the performance spread.

Related articles

View all