shensy@swsresearch.com 邓虎 A0230520070003 denghu@swsresearch.com 联系人 沈思逸 A0230521070001 shensy@swsresearch.com 权 益 量 化 研 究 证 券 研 究 报 告 2026 年 01 月 26 日 个人投资者相关股票产品发行 ——海外创新产品周报 20260126 相关研究 请务必仔细阅读正文之后的各项信息披露与声明 本研究报告仅通过邮件提供给 中庚基金 使用。1 ETP 研 究 - 证券分析师 沈思逸 A0230521070001 ⚫ 美国 ETF 创新产品：个人投资者相关股票产品发行。上周美国共 19 只新发产品，多只与 个人投资者关注的股票相关的 ETF 发行。Tuttle Capital 上周发行一只"Meme Stock" 策略产品，产品主要投资于社交媒体上受到个人投资者关注的 15-30 只股票，并通过看 跌期权价差策略增厚收益；Defiance 发行的"Retail Kings"ETF 同样关注个人投资者相 关股票，产品采用主动管理，投资于个人投资者参与度高、讨论较多、趋势强的股票，涉 及 A ...

Core Insights - The Vanguard Mega Cap Growth ETF (MGK) and the iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF (IWO) represent different strategies in U.S. growth investing, with MGK focusing on large-cap companies and IWO on small-cap stocks [1][7] Cost & Size Comparison - MGK has a lower expense ratio of 0.07% compared to IWO's 0.24% - As of January 25, 2026, MGK's one-year return is 15.25%, while IWO's is slightly higher at 15.35% - MGK has a dividend yield of 0.35%, whereas IWO offers a yield of 0.56% - The five-year beta for MGK is 1.20, while IWO's is higher at 1.45 - MGK has assets under management (AUM) of $32 billion, significantly larger than IWO's $13 billion [3] Performance & Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, MGK experienced a maximum drawdown of -36.02%, while IWO faced a more severe drawdown of -42.02% - An investment of $1,000 in MGK would have grown to $1,954, compared to $1,097 for IWO over the same period [4][8] Portfolio Composition - IWO provides exposure to over 1,000 small-cap U.S. growth stocks, with significant allocations in healthcare (26%), technology (23%), and industrials (20%) - Major holdings in IWO include Bloom Energy, Credo Technology Group, and Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, each under 2% of the portfolio - MGK is concentrated with only 60 stocks, heavily weighted towards technology at 55%, with top holdings including Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft, which together account for over 35% of the fund [5][6][9] Investment Implications - MGK's focus on mega-cap stocks has led to higher total returns over five years, attributed to the strong performance of its top holdings - IWO, while more volatile, offers greater diversification and less concentration in technology, appealing to investors seeking exposure to smaller, innovative companies [7][10]

Core Viewpoint - The Vanguard Value ETF (VTV) and the State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 1500 Composite Stock Market ETF (SPTM) serve different investment strategies, with VTV focusing on large-cap value stocks and SPTM providing broader market exposure across various market capitalizations [2][9]. Cost & Size - VTV has an expense ratio of 0.04% and assets under management (AUM) of $218 billion, while SPTM has a slightly lower expense ratio of 0.03% and AUM of $12 billion [3][4]. - The one-year return for VTV is 11.48%, compared to SPTM's 12.91%, and VTV offers a higher dividend yield of 2.05% versus SPTM's 1.13% [3][4]. Performance & Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, VTV has a maximum drawdown of -17.03%, while SPTM has a higher drawdown of -24.15% [5]. - An investment of $1,000 in VTV would grow to $1,622 over five years, whereas the same investment in SPTM would grow to $1,765 [5]. Portfolio Composition - SPTM tracks a broad U.S. equity index with 1,510 stocks, heavily weighted towards technology (34%), followed by financial services (13%) and consumer cyclical (11%) [6]. - VTV focuses on 312 large-cap value stocks, with significant sector exposure in financial services (25%), healthcare (16%), and industrials (13%) [7]. Investment Implications - SPTM offers broader market exposure and includes stocks from various sectors and sizes, making it suitable for investors seeking overall market performance [9]. - VTV targets large-cap value stocks, which may provide more stability and higher dividend income potential, appealing to income-focused investors [10].

Core Insights - The Vanguard S&P 500 Growth ETF (VOOG) and the iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF (IWO) target U.S. growth stocks but differ significantly in their focus, with VOOG emphasizing large-cap established companies and IWO focusing on smaller, fast-growing firms [2] Cost & Size Comparison - VOOG has a lower expense ratio of 0.07% compared to IWO's 0.24% - As of January 25, 2026, VOOG's one-year return is 16.16%, while IWO's is 15.31% - VOOG has a dividend yield of 0.49% and IWO has a yield of 0.56% - VOOG has a five-year beta of 1.08, indicating lower volatility compared to IWO's beta of 1.45 - VOOG's assets under management (AUM) stand at $22 billion, while IWO's AUM is $13 billion [3][4] Performance & Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, VOOG experienced a maximum drawdown of -32.74%, while IWO faced a more severe drawdown of -42.02% - An investment of $1,000 in VOOG would have grown to $1,880, whereas the same investment in IWO would have grown to $1,097 [5][8] Portfolio Composition - IWO tracks 1,098 small-cap growth stocks, with significant allocations in healthcare (26%), technology (23%), and industrials (20%) - The largest positions in IWO include Bloom Energy, Credo Technology Group, and Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, each under 2% of total assets - VOOG is concentrated in large-cap U.S. growth stocks, with technology making up nearly 50% of its assets, followed by communication services and financial services - Top holdings in VOOG include Nvidia, Microsoft, and Apple, which collectively account for over 30% of its assets [6][7] Investor Implications - Growth ETFs cater to various investor preferences, with VOOG focusing on larger, more stable companies that may better withstand market volatility compared to smaller firms in IWO [10]

Core Insights - The Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF (SCHB) provides broader market exposure with a technology emphasis, while the Vanguard Value ETF (VTV) focuses on large-cap value stocks, offering higher yield and lower volatility, catering to different investor priorities [2][10] Cost & Size Comparison - VTV has an expense ratio of 0.04% and assets under management (AUM) of $217.8 billion, while SCHB has a lower expense ratio of 0.03% and AUM of $38.9 billion [4] - The one-year return for VTV is 15.3%, compared to SCHB's 16.9%, and VTV offers a higher dividend yield of 2.0% versus SCHB's 1.1% [4][5] Performance & Risk Metrics - Over five years, VTV has a maximum drawdown of 17.04%, while SCHB has a higher drawdown of 25.36% [6] - A $1,000 investment in VTV would grow to $1,622, while the same investment in SCHB would grow to $1,697 over five years [6] Holdings Composition - SCHB holds 2,401 stocks with a significant tilt towards technology (33%), followed by financial services (14%) and consumer cyclicals (11%), with top positions in Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft [7] - VTV focuses on large-cap value with major sectors being financial services (23%), healthcare (15%), and industrials (17%), featuring top holdings in JPMorgan Chase, Berkshire Hathaway, and Exxon Mobil, which collectively represent about 8% of its net assets [8] Summary of Investment Characteristics - SCHB captures the entire U.S. equity market with a heavier technology focus, while VTV offers a higher dividend yield and lower volatility [10] - SCHB is more diversified with over 2,400 holdings, whereas VTV is larger in terms of assets under management [10]

Core Insights - The comparison between Vanguard Short-Term Treasury ETF (VGSH) and VanEck Short Muni ETF (SMB) highlights differences in bond exposure, yield, assets under management, and trading liquidity [2][3] Cost & Size - VGSH has a lower expense ratio of 0.03% compared to SMB's 0.07% and offers a higher dividend yield of 4.0% versus SMB's 2.6% [4][5] - VGSH has assets under management (AUM) of $30.4 billion, significantly larger than SMB's AUM of $295.4 million [4] Performance & Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, VGSH experienced a maximum drawdown of -5.69%, while SMB had a larger drawdown of -7.42% [6] - The growth of $1,000 over five years shows VGSH at $953 and SMB at $958, indicating slight outperformance by SMB [6] Underlying Holdings - SMB invests in 334 tax-exempt, primarily investment-grade municipal bonds, while VGSH holds 93 U.S. Treasury securities, providing pure government-backed exposure [7] - Both funds have a 100% allocation to cash and equivalents, but differ in credit quality and taxation treatment [7] Implications for Investors - VGSH's lower expense ratio and higher yield make it attractive for income-focused investors, while SMB's tax-exempt municipal bonds may appeal to those seeking tax advantages [10][11] - VGSH offers stability through U.S. Treasury bonds, while SMB provides exposure to municipal bonds that fund infrastructure projects [11]

Core Insights - The Vanguard Intermediate-Term Treasury ETF (VGIT) and iShares 5-10 Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (IGIB) adopt different strategies for balancing income, risk, and diversification in fixed income investments [1] Cost and Size Comparison - VGIT has an expense ratio of 0.03% and assets under management (AUM) of $44.6 billion, while IGIB has an expense ratio of 0.04% and AUM of $17.6 billion [3] - The one-year return for VGIT is 3.0% and for IGIB is 4.6%, with both funds showing a dividend yield of 3.8% for VGIT and 4.6% for IGIB [3][4] Performance and Risk Analysis - Over the past five years, VGIT experienced a maximum drawdown of 15.13%, while IGIB had a maximum drawdown of 20.64% [5] - The growth of a $1,000 investment over five years is $863 for VGIT and $878 for IGIB, indicating that IGIB offers a higher cumulative return despite its greater volatility [5] Portfolio Composition - IGIB holds nearly 3,000 U.S. investment-grade corporate bonds with maturities between five and ten years, providing broad sector exposure beyond government debt [7] - VGIT exclusively invests in U.S. Treasury securities, eliminating credit risk but resulting in lower yield and narrower sector diversification compared to IGIB [8] Investment Considerations - VGIT is recommended for investors prioritizing safety and stability, particularly in conservative portfolios or during market turbulence, while IGIB is suitable for those willing to accept corporate credit risk for higher income [12]

Core Insights - The Roundhill Investments - Generative AI & Technology ETF (CHAT) has shown higher recent returns and yield compared to the Vanguard Information Technology ETF (VGT), which is characterized by lower costs and a larger asset base [2][3] Cost & Size Comparison - CHAT has an expense ratio of 0.75% while VGT has a significantly lower expense ratio of 0.09% - As of January 23, 2026, CHAT's one-year return is 39.4% compared to VGT's 16.8% - CHAT offers a dividend yield of 2.7%, whereas VGT's yield is only 0.4% - VGT has assets under management (AUM) of $130.7 billion, while CHAT has $1.0 billion [4][5] Performance & Risk Comparison - Over a two-year period, the maximum drawdown for VGT is (27.23%) compared to CHAT's (31.35%) [6] Holdings Composition - CHAT focuses on generative artificial intelligence with 52 holdings, primarily in technology (85%), followed by communication services (9%) and consumer cyclical (6%). Major holdings include Alphabet, NVIDIA, and Microsoft [7] - VGT provides broader exposure with 310 holdings, predominantly in technology (98%), featuring top companies like NVIDIA, Apple, and Microsoft [8] Summary of Investment Profiles - CHAT has outperformed VGT in terms of one-year return and yield but comes with higher volatility and a steeper drawdown - CHAT is actively managed with an ESG screen, while VGT follows a passive management approach tracking a broad technology index - VGT offers greater diversification and a lower expense ratio, making it more suitable for long-term investors [9]

Core Insights - The Vanguard Mega Cap Growth ETF (MGK) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) differ significantly in cost structure and investment focus, with MGK being more cost-effective and concentrated in technology, while IWM offers broader small-cap exposure and higher yield [2][3]. Cost & Size Comparison - MGK has an expense ratio of 0.07%, while IWM's is 0.19%, making MGK the more affordable option [4]. - As of January 22, 2026, MGK's one-year return is 14.4%, compared to IWM's 18.2% [4]. - MGK has a dividend yield of 0.4%, whereas IWM offers a higher yield of 1.0% [4]. - MGK has assets under management (AUM) of $32.5 billion, while IWM has $73.7 billion [4]. Performance & Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, MGK experienced a maximum drawdown of -36.01%, while IWM's was -31.91% [6]. - An investment of $1,000 in MGK would have grown to $1,929 over five years, compared to $1,256 for IWM [6]. Portfolio Composition - IWM holds 1,951 stocks, with sector weights led by healthcare (19%), financial services (16%), and technology (16%), maintaining low single-company risk [7]. - MGK is heavily concentrated in technology, with 70% of its assets in this sector, and top holdings like NVIDIA, Apple, and Microsoft making up over a third of its assets [8]. - IWM provides long-standing access to the small-cap segment with a fund age of 25.7 years [7]. Investment Implications - The choice between MGK and IWM depends on the desired exposure to the stock market, with MGK focusing on mega-cap tech growth and IWM offering a diversified small-cap approach [11].

Core Insights - The article compares two international ETFs: Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets ETF (VWO) and iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. ETF (ACWX), highlighting their differing focuses on emerging markets versus a broader global diversification strategy [2] Cost and Size Comparison - VWO has a significantly lower expense ratio of 0.07% compared to ACWX's 0.32% [3][4] - As of January 25, 2026, VWO's one-year return is 28.53%, while ACWX's is 31.86% [3] - Both ETFs offer similar dividend yields, with VWO at 2.64% and ACWX at 2.7% [3] - VWO has assets under management (AUM) of $112.62 billion, significantly larger than ACWX's $8.53 billion [3] Performance and Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, VWO experienced a maximum drawdown of -34.31%, while ACWX had a drawdown of -30.06% [5] - An investment of $1,000 in VWO would have grown to $1,069 over five years, compared to $1,267 for ACWX [5] Portfolio Composition - ACWX, launched nearly 18 years ago, holds 1,796 companies across developed and emerging markets, with a focus on financial services, industrials, and technology [6] - The largest positions in ACWX include Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Tencent Holdings Ltd., and ASML Holding N.V. [6] - VWO is concentrated in emerging markets, with significant investments in technology, financial services, and consumer cyclical sectors, including major stakes in Taiwan Semiconductor, Tencent, and Alibaba Group [7] - TSMC alone constitutes over 10% of VWO's assets, indicating a higher concentration and potential volatility compared to ACWX [7] Dividend Payment Structure - ACWX pays dividends semi-annually, while VWO pays dividends quarterly, which may influence investor preferences regarding cash flow [10]