Assessing the value of an ETF
"You seem to be assuming that ETFs must all work like the more traditional closed-end funds, where the market price per share tends—based on supply and demand—to significantly deviate from the underlying net asset value per share. The assumption is simplistic. What are traditionally referred to as closed-end funds (CEFs), where unit creation and redemption are very tightly controlled, have been around for a long time, and yes, they do often trade at a premium or discount to NAV because the quantity is inflexible. Yet, what is generally meant when the label ""ETF"" is used (despite CEFs also being both ""exchange-traded"" and ""funds"") are those securities which are not just exchange-traded, and funds, but also typically have two specific characteristics: (a) that they are based on some published index, and (b) that a mechanism exists for shares to be created or redeemed by large market participants. These characteristics facilitate efficient pricing through arbitrage. Essentially, when large market participants notice the price of an ETF diverging from the value of the shares held by the fund, new units of the ETF can get created or redeemed in bulk. The divergence quickly narrows as these participants buy or sell ETF units to capture the difference. So, the persistent premium (sometimes dear) or discount (sometimes deep) one can easily witness in the CEF universe tend not to occur with the typical ETF. Much of the time, prices for ETFs will tend to be very close to their net asset value. However, it isn't always the case, so proceed with some caution anyway. Both CEF and ETF providers generally publish information about their funds online. You will want to find out what is the underlying Net Asset Value (NAV) per share, and then you can determine if the market price trades at a premium or a discount to NAV. Assuming little difference in an ETF's price vs. its NAV, the more interesting question to ask about an ETF then becomes whether the NAV itself is a bargain, or not. That means you'll need to be more concerned with what stocks are in the index the fund tracks, and whether those stocks are a bargain, or not, at their current prices. i.e. The ETF is a basket, so look at each thing in the basket. Of course, most people buy ETFs because they don't want to do this kind of analysis and are happy with market average returns. Even so, sector-based ETFs are often used by traders to buy (or sell) entire sectors that may be undervalued (or overvalued)." You can follow the intra-day NAV of an ETF, for instance SPY, by viewing its .IV (intra-day value) ticker which tracks it's value.   http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=spy http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^SPY-IV Otherwise, each ETF provider will update their NAV after business each day on their own website. https://www.spdrs.com/product/fund.seam?ticker=spy
"ETF Creation and Redemption Process notes the process: While ETF trading occurs on an exchange like stocks, the process by   which their shares are created is significantly different. Unless a   company decides to issue more shares, the supply of shares of an   individual stock trading in the marketplace is finite. When demand   increases for shares of an ETF, however, Authorized Participants (APs)   have the ability to create additional shares on demand. Through an ""in kind"" transfer mechanism, APs create ETF units in the   primary market by delivering a basket of securities to the fund equal   to the current holdings of the ETF. In return, they receive a large   block of ETF shares (typically 50,000), which are then available for   trading in the secondary market. This ETF creation and redemption   process helps keep ETF supply and demand in continual balance and   provides a ""hidden"" layer of liquidity not evident by looking at   trading volumes alone. This process also works in reverse. If an investor wants to sell a   large block of shares of an ETF, even if there seems to be limited   liquidity in the secondary market, APs can readily redeem a block of   ETF shares by gathering enough shares of the ETF to form a creation   unit and then exchanging the creation unit for the underlying   securities. Thus, the in-kind swap to the underlying securities is only done by APs so the outflow would be these individuals taking a large block of the ETF and swapping it for the underlying securities.  The APs would be taking advantage of the difference between what the ETF's trading value and the value of the underlying securities." "The property tax valuation and the fair market price are NOT one and the same.  They track each other, correlate to each other, but are almost NEVER the same number. In some parts of the USA, a municipality has to re-assess property tax values every ten years.  In these places, the tax value of a property is on something like a 10-year moving average, NOT on the volatile daily market price. EDIT:  It is easy to fall into the ""trap"" of thinking that property tax valuation is intended to represent fair market value.  It's INTENT is to provide an accurate (or, as accurate as possible) RELATIVE VALUATION of your property compared to the other properties in the municipality. The sum of all the property values is the tax base of the municipality.  When the town budget (which is paid in part via property taxes) is set, the town simply divides the tax base into the budget total to arrive at the ratio of tax-to-collect, to the tax base, also called the ""tax rate per thousand dollars of valuation.""  i.e. if the town tax base is US$10,000,000, and the town budget is US$500,000, then the ratio is 0.05, or $50 per thousand dollars of valuation.  If your property is assessed at US$100,000, then you would pay 100 x $50, or $5000 in property taxes that year. Since this is the goal of the property tax valuation, NOT deciding what your house is worth on the open market, then we are left with the question of ""why use the market value of a house for property assessment?"" and the answer is that of all the various schemes and algorithms you can try, ""fair market value"" is the easiest and most accurate...IF TIME FLUCUTATIONS ARE TAKEN OUT.  For example, if I buy a house in a development for $250,000 today, and next summer the housing market crashes, and you buy the identical house next door to me for $150,000, it does NOT stand to reason that you should pay less taxes than me, because your house is ""worth"" $100,000 less.  In fact, BOTH our houses are worth $100,000 less. What matters most in property tax valuation isn't the actual number, but rather, is YOUR valuation the same as other essentially similar properties in your tax base?  Getting the RELATIVE ratio of value between you and your neighbors correct is the goal of property tax valuation." "Taxes are triggered when you sell the individual stock.      The IRS doesn't care which of your accounts the money is in.  They view all your bank and brokerage accounts as if they are one big account mashed together.   That kind of lumping is standard accounting practice for businesses. P/L, balance sheets, cash flow statements etc. will clump cash accounts as ""cash"".  Taxes are also triggered when they pay you a dividend.  That's why ETFs are preferable to mutual funds; ETFs automatically fold the dividends back into the ETF's value, so it doesn't cause a taxable event.  Less paperwork.  None of the above applies to retirement accounts.  They are special.  You don't report activity inside retirement accounts, because it would be very hard for regular folk to do that reporting, so that would discourage them from taking IRAs.   Taxes are paid at withdrawal time (or in Roth's, never.)" Well, not having heard of this guy before, I have to be careful taking what he says at face value. I agree with him to some degree, but I suppose I'm not as confident in my assessment. The list of his credentials seems relevent to me, but it would be informative to have more insight into his motives for his opinions. An interesting read.  As of lately, my office has been getting calls from Hartford, Fidelity, Oppenheimer, First Trust, and now Prudential regarding their ETFs.  A lot of them just received their 3 year number and the companies are trying to get inflows into them.  Prudential's has not launched yet, but is expecting to drop end of summer or early fall.  Fidelity is currently the only major competitor in the space.  They have a slightly lower internal cost compared to Vanguard and their position are almost identical to the iShares ETFs offered by Black Rock.  You can think of Black Rock as Bounty brand paper towels while Fidelity is more like Kirkland Signature.  Essentially the same thing with a slight savings on price.  One thing to look out for is the very thin trading volume on some of these new ETFs.  Oppenheimer and Hartford have very thin levels of volume which makes owning them feel like a game of old maid.  You don't want to be stuck holding the bag if something happens in the sector ETF that was purchased.  Always make sure there is a market for some of these ETFs before you buy it.  Fidelity has overcome some of these volume problems... but some of the ETFs are still a little thin.  Just stick with Vanguard for the thinly traded sectors and consider Fidelity if you want to shave a few bps on internal cost.    This has just been my personal observation of the industry. Having all of the numbers you posted is a start. It's what you need to perform the calculation.  The final word, however, comes from the company itself, who are required to issue a determination on how the spin-off is valued. Say a company is split into two. Instead of some number of shares of each new company, imagine for this example it's one for one. i.e. One share of company A becomes a share each in company B and company C. This tell us nothing about relative valuation, right? Was B worth 1/2 of the original company A, or some other fraction? Say it is exactly a 50/50 split. Company A releases a statement that B and C each should have 1/2 the cost basis of your original A shares. Now, B and C may very well trade ahead of the stock splitting, as 'when issued' shares. At no point in time will B and C necessarily trade at exactly the same price, and the day that B and C are officially trading, with no more A shares, they may have already diverged in price. That is, there's nothing you can pull from the trading data to identify that the basis should have been assigned as 50% to each new share. This is my very long-winded was of explaining that the company must issue a notice through your broker, and on their investor section of their web site, to spell out the way you should assign your basis to each new stock. How you use the metric is super important.   Because it subtracts cash, it does not represent 'value'.  It represents the ongoing financing that will be necessary if both the equity plus debt is bought by one person, who then pays himself a dividend with that free cash.   So if you are Private Equity, this measures your net investment at t=0.5, not the price you pay at t=0.  If you are a retail investor, who a) won't be buying the debt, b) won't have any control over things like tax jurisdictions, c) won't be receiving any cash dividend, etc etc .... the metric is pointless. What is your time horizon? Over long horizons, you absolutely want to minimise the expense ratio – a seemingly puny 2% fee p.a. can cost you a third of your savings over 35 years. Over short horizons, the cost of trading in and trading out might matter more. A mutual fund might be front-loaded, i.e. charge a fixed initial percentage when you first purchase it. ETFs, traded daily on an exchange just like a stock, don't have that. What you'll pay there is the broker commission, and the bid-ask spread (and possibly any premium/discount the ETF has vis-a-vis the underlying asset value).  Another thing to keep in mind is tracking error: how closely does the fond mirror the underlying index it attempts to track? More often than not it works against you. However, not sure there is a systematic difference between ETFs and funds there. Size and age of a fund can matter, indeed - I've had new and smallish ETFs that didn't take off close down, so I had to sell and re-allocate the money. Two more minor aspects: Synthetic ETFs and lending to short sellers. 1) Some ETFs are synthetic, that is, they don't buy all the underlying shares replicating the index, actually owning the shares. Instead, they put the money in the bank and enter a swap with a counter-party, typically an investment bank, that promises to pay them the equivalent return of holding that share portfolio. In this case, you have (implicit) credit exposure to that counter-party - if the index performs well, and they don't pay up, well, tough luck. The ETF was relying on that swap, never really held the shares comprising the index, and won't necessarily cough up the difference. 2) In a similar vein, some (non-synthetic) ETFs hold the shares, but then lend them out to short sellers, earning extra money. This will increase the profit of the ETF provider, and potentially decrease your expense ratio (if they pass some of the profit on, or charge lower fees). So, that's a good thing. In case of an operational screw up, or if the short seller can't fulfil their obligations to return the shares, there is a risk of a loss.  These two considerations are not really a factor in normal times (except in improving ETF expense ratios), but during the 2009 meltdown they were floated as things to consider. Mutual funds and ETFs re-invest or pay out dividends. For a given mutual fund, you might be able to choose, while ETFs typically are of one type or the other. Not sure how tax treatment differs there, though, sorry (not something I have to deal with in my jurisdiction).  As a rule of thumb though, as alex vieux says, for a popular index, ETFs will be cheaper over the long term. Very low cost mutual funds, such as Vanguard, might be competitive though.