It thought its own number looked wrong, and used it anyway

I’ll distinguish shared-holding counts from overlap by portfolio weight, and check whether the issuer data supports either calculation at your cutoff. I can’t give you a verified overlap percentage at your cutoff from the issuer versions available here. An exact number would require complete holdings and weights for both funds, with evidence that those versions were published by 16 October 2026 at 4 p.m. Eastern. Why the data does not qualify The IVV issuer holdings download retrieved in this review is dated 27 October 2026, after the cutoff. The IWF issuer holdings page is also live rather than a verified historical snapshot. The IVV fact sheet and IWF fact sheet found are labelled 30 June 2026, but lack verified publication timing and do not establish the latest complete holdings available at your cutoff. Top-holdings lists alone are insufficient for full overlap. How I would measure it Shared-company count: how many companies appear in both funds, combining multiple share classes of the same company. Weighted overlap: for every company, take the smaller of its two fund weights, then add those smaller weights. This ranges from 0% for no common company exposure to 100% for identical company weights. It compares the funds themselves, independently of how much you own. Your dollars in shared companies: for each shared company, add 20,000 × its IVV weight and 15,000 × its IWF weight, then total across those companies. This measures your exposure through both funds, not money literally counted twice. What we can calculate now, from your message: your ETF sleeve totals 35,000, split 57.14% IVV / 42.86% IWF. Your four listed positions total 45,000, of which the ETFs are 77.78%. The direct Lilly and Visa positions do not affect fund-to-fund overlap; they would add to your overall company concentrations if either also appears in the funds. I still cannot substantiate the common-company count, weighted overlap, or your dollars in shared companies at the cutoff. I have not substituted current weights, assumed IWF is wholly contained in IVV, or changed any holdings.

Exact overlap cannot be established under your cutoff. No shared-holdings count, weight-overlap percentage, or duplicated-dollar figure is supported, because no complete IWF holdings file proven public by the cutoff could be found. I searched. Sources and what each establishes: - Latest IVV holdings: https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239726/ishares-core-s-p-500-etf/latest-holdings.csv and latest IWF holdings: https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239706/ishares-russell-1000-growth-etf/latest-holdings.csv - both stamped "as of Oct 23, 2026," after your cutoff, so excluded. I did not establish that no dated historical file exists on the fund site. - Archived official IVV CSV, captured 2 Oct 2026: https://web.archive.org/web/20261002101902id_/https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239726/ishares-core-s-p-500-etf/latest-holdings.csv - stamped as of 30 Sep 2026. The capture date is evidence these contents were public before the cutoff, not just an as-of date. But one fund alone cannot establish shared names, this doesn't prove it was IVV's latest publication by the cutoff, and the retrieved text ends partway through a row, so complete counts can't be claimed from it. - IWF: archive index queries for the holdings URL returned nothing. That means not recovered here, not that no capture existed. The IVV and IWF fact sheets are dated 30 Jun 2026 but carry no publication timestamp, no pre-cutoff capture was recovered, and they only list top holdings - insufficient for a complete overlap. One correction to earlier work tonight: I previously told you the 2 Oct IVV capture's contents were not readable. That was wrong. The archived copy is readable and is stamped 30 Sep 2026 (example: NVIDIA at 8.37% in that snapshot). Supported parts (my arithmetic, assuming your numbers are dollars): - Your two funds total $35,000 of the $45,000 stated, or 77.78%. That is allocation, not overlap. - In the archived 30 Sep IVV snapshot, NVIDIA's 8.37% would be $1,674 of your 20,000 - but that says nothing about IWF, so it is not an overlap figure. What cannot be concluded: - The number of common holdings, the weight overlap, dollars sitting in shared names, and any duplicated exposure between your 20,000 and 15,000. All of those need a complete IWF holdings list proven public by the cutoff, which is the missing evidence, plus proof of which files were the latest publications by the cutoff. - Direct LLY and V amounts don't change how much the two funds overlap; whether those names also duplicate ETF exposure needs the same missing holdings data. I gave no buy or sell call. I placed no order, moved no money and changed no setting. I searched; the pages used are named above. References: the two iShares holdings files, the archived IVV CSV, and the Wayback CDX index, all linked above.

[interim narration] I've started a read-only check of the two SEC NPORT-P filings for IVV and IWF that were filed before your October 16 cutoff, to get their full holdings lists from the primary filing documents rather than a daily website file. Once that returns, I'll compute the overlap on a common basis — how many holdings they share, what share of each fund's weight sits in those shared holdings, and what that means for your stated $20,000 in IVV and $15,000 in IWF — and I'll cite each filing with its date and link, plus what still can't be established about any later daily holdings. [answer] On the latest SEC-filed holdings basis I could establish before your cutoff, the overlap is large by weight, and asymmetric. Primary sources used iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV): Form NPORT-P, holdings as of June 30, 2026, filed August 25, 2026, accession 0002071691-26-019760. [link: Filing index] | [link: Primary document] iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF): Form NPORT-P, holdings as of June 30, 2026, filed August 24, 2026, accession 0001004726-26-007047. [link: Filing index] | [link: Primary document] There is no single filing containing both funds; each was checked separately, using its primary XML document, not its NPORT-EX exhibit. How the overlap was counted Equity common-stock lines only, with share classes counted separately and matched mainly by CUSIP. Cash funds, index futures, and, for IVV, a contingent value right were excluded from the counts below. IVV: 503 equity lines IWF: 368 equity lines Held by both: 177 lines IVV-only: 326 lines IWF-only: 191 lines So only 35.2% of IVV's equity lines and 48.1% of IWF's equity lines are shared, but those shared lines carry most of the weight: 67.09% of IVV's net assets are in the 177 common lines. 93.48% of IWF's net assets are in those same lines. Applied to the amounts you stated: IVV: $20,000 × 67.09% = $13,418.07 in common names; $6,581.93 in IVV-only names IWF: $15,000 × 93.48% = $14,021.30 in common names; $978.70 in IWF-only names Combined ETF money in common names, counting each fund's slice separately: $27,439.37 of $35,000, or 78.40% In other words, IWF is almost entirely inside IVV by weight, while about a third of IVV's weight is in S&P 500 names not in the growth fund. Largest common holdings Weights are percent of each fund's net assets in the June 30 filings: NVIDIA: IVV 7.51%, IWF 13.83% Apple: IVV 6.58%, IWF 6.72% Microsoft: IVV 4.29%, IWF 4.11% Amazon: IVV 3.61%, IWF 0.57% Alphabet Class A: IVV 3.25%, IWF 6.17% Broadcom: IVV 2.77%, IWF 5.21% Alphabet Class C: IVV 2.59%, IWF 4.98% Micron: IVV 2.02%, IWF 3.86% Meta Class A: IVV 1.92%, IWF 3.00% Tesla: IVV 1.83%, IWF 3.64% NVIDIA remains the largest common holding even if Alphabet's two classes are combined. What this means for your direct holdings Both of your direct holdings are also common holdings: Eli Lilly: IVV 1.47%, IWF 2.84%. Total on your stated amounts: $6,000 direct + $293.91 from IVV + $425.59 from IWF = $6,719.50 Visa Class A: IVV 0.88%, IWF 1.68%. Total: $4,000 direct + $176.39 from IVV + $251.78 from IWF = $4,428.17 What this does not establish This is a June 30, 2026 holdings snapshot, filed in August 2026. It does not establish what either fund held on October 16, 2026, or that a later iShares daily holdings file was published by your cutoff at 4:00 p.m. Eastern — an as-of date alone does not prove publication time, so no daily website file was used here. It also does not establish the market value of your $20,000 and $15,000 ETF amounts on June 30 or October 16; those amounts were applied exactly as you stated them.

**About 57% by weight, as of June 30, 2026.** That is the latest date for which I can show both funds' full holdings were public before your cutoff. I calculated this from the two schedules of investments filed with the SEC. Overlap here is the sum, across shared stocks, of the smaller of the two fund weights. My transcription reproduces every industry subtotal and both totals in the filings. | Measure (June 30, 2026) | Result | |---|---| | Overlap by weight | 57.4% | | Stocks held by both | 177 (of 503 in the S&P 500 fund and 368 in the growth fund) | | Share of the growth fund in stocks the S&P 500 fund also holds | 93.5% | | Share of the S&P 500 fund in stocks the growth fund also holds | 67.1% | - **Where they overlap:** Nvidia is the largest shared position (7.5% of the S&P 500 fund, 13.8% of the growth fund), followed by Apple (6.6% and 6.7%) and Microsoft (4.3% and 4.1%). - **Where they differ:** The growth fund held only 0.6% in Amazon against 3.6% in the S&P 500 fund. It held no Berkshire Hathaway, JPMorgan, Intel, Johnson & Johnson or Exxon, which were 0.9% to 1.4% each in the S&P 500 fund. - **Growth-only names:** These were 6.4% of the growth fund across 191 small positions, the largest being Snowflake at about 0.25%. ## Your two direct holdings Both funds also hold Lilly and Visa. This assumes your figures are money amounts in one currency, 45,000 in total. | | Direct | Via S&P 500 fund | Via growth fund | Total | Share of portfolio | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | Eli Lilly | 6,000 | 294 (1.47%) | 426 (2.84%) | 6,720 | 14.9% (13.3% direct only) | | Visa | 4,000 | 176 (0.88%) | 252 (1.68%) | 4,428 | 9.8% (8.9% direct only) | ## Sources and timing - **iShares Core S&P 500 ETF:** Form NPORT-P, period June 30, 2026, filed August 25, 2026 (accepted 10:10:51), per the [EDGAR filing index](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1100663/000207169126019760/0002071691-26-019760-index.html). The [schedule of investments](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001100663/000207169126019760/iSCoreSP500.htm) shows net assets of $890,943,685,611, Eli Lilly at $13,093,059,441 and Visa at $7,857,649,260. - **iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF:** Form NPORT-P, period June 30, 2026, accession 0001004726-26-007047. The [schedule of investments](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001100663/000100472626007047/tiaa_WJ0000000037222.htm) shows net assets of $128,793,974,548, Eli Lilly at $3,654,200,230 and Visa at $2,161,827,245. - **Timing gap on the growth fund filing:** I could not open EDGAR's own index page for it. The August 24, 2026 filing date comes from a third-party EDGAR tracker, [filing.fyi](https://filing.fyi/funds/iwf), which lists that accession number as filed Aug 24, 2026. That is well before your cutoff, but it is not confirmed on the primary source. ## What cannot be concluded - **Overlap at the cutoff itself (October 16):** Weights drift daily, and index changes after June 30 are not captured. The 57% figure is a June 30 snapshot. - **iShares daily holdings file:** The [version retrievable today](https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239706/ishares-russell-1000-growth-etf/latest-holdings.csv) is dated Nov 06, 2026, after your cutoff, so I did not use it. - **September 30 data:** The iShares product page shows some September 30 figures, but I found nothing establishing when they were posted. I did not find a September 30 holdings filing on EDGAR, so I used no September 30 data.