As I mentioned in the other thread, about these two ETFs, VBR appeared to have more net securities lending revenue than its expense ratio by 5bp), while AVUV's expense ratio was greater by about 23bp.
I doubt securities lending revenue can be considered qualified dividends, so if that revenue continues to exceed the fund expenses, VBR would never get to 100% qualified dividends.
It's possible AVUV had some non-qualified dividend revenue, but it was taken out in the form of fees.
I (roughly) estimate that if VBR had an expense ratio of 0.25% instead of 0.08% the qualified dividend percentage would have been around 81% last year. So, seems like it's not just expenses and security lending revenue differences that allows AVUV to have 100% qualified dividends.
I doubt securities lending revenue can be considered qualified dividends, so if that revenue continues to exceed the fund expenses, VBR would never get to 100% qualified dividends.
It's possible AVUV had some non-qualified dividend revenue, but it was taken out in the form of fees.
I (roughly) estimate that if VBR had an expense ratio of 0.25% instead of 0.08% the qualified dividend percentage would have been around 81% last year. So, seems like it's not just expenses and security lending revenue differences that allows AVUV to have 100% qualified dividends.
Statistics: Posted by Lyrrad — Mon Mar 11, 2024 8:43 pm — Replies 13 — Views 643