LIC MF Gold Exchange Traded Fund

Data, not advice. These pages show NAV history, category and computed returns as published by AMFI, so funds can be compared side by side. StockProof does not rank funds, does not score them, and does not recommend buying, selling or holding any of them. Past NAV movement is not an indication of future returns.

Fund names here are CURRENT names, not the name the fund had on the date shown. AMFI retroactively restates historical scheme names to whatever the fund is called today: its own April 2006 file lists schemes under "Nippon India Mutual Fund", a fund house that did not exist until 2019 (it was Reliance). Measured on 2026-08-29, all 1,947 scheme codes present in both AMFI's 2018 and 2026 files showed zero name changes — not because renames are rare in the Indian fund industry, but because the history is rewritten. StockProof stores and shows only the current name and does not attempt to reconstruct point-in-time names, because AMFI publishes nothing that would make that possible. The NAV figures themselves are as published for each date and are not restated.

Long-window returns are measured only over funds that still exist. Of the 1,790 scheme codes AMFI priced in April 2006, only 568 (31%) were still being priced in 2026. Funds that closed or merged are not in a long-period comparison, so any group of surviving funds looks better than the choice an investor actually faced at the time.

Premium and discount are a measurement, not a verdict. An ETF has two prices on the same day: the NAV its fund house declares, and the price it actually traded at on NSE. This page shows the gap between them, computed as (traded close − NAV) ÷ NAV. A premium does not mean the fund is expensive and a discount does not mean it is cheap — persistent gaps usually reflect how and when the NAV itself is struck, not a mispricing anyone can act on. StockProof does not rank ETFs, score them, or recommend buying, selling or holding any of them.

Every figure here pairs a traded price with the NAV for THE SAME DATE, and days where only one of the two exists are excluded rather than filled in. That is why the paired-day count below can be lower than either the price history or the NAV history on its own. Comparing one day's price against another day's NAV would report that day's market movement as a premium — on a day the market moved 1.5%, it would invent a 1.5% premium that never existed.

A wide, persistent gap is usually about NAV timing rather than the market. An ETF holding overseas assets has its NAV struck from a foreign close that happens after Indian trading ends, so its traded price reflects newer information than the NAV it is compared against here. A debt ETF's NAV is struck on valuation-agency matrix prices that no one necessarily transacted at. Gold and silver ETF NAVs follow a domestic reference rate. In each case the two numbers are measured differently, and the difference between them is not evidence that either one is wrong.

A closing price is only as meaningful as the trading behind it. Many Indian ETFs trade in very small volumes, where the day's close can be a single small trade rather than a price the market cleared at, and a large premium on a nearly untraded day is mostly noise. Traded quantity is shown beside every figure so a gap measured on thin volume is visibly not the same fact as one measured on heavy volume. On a day an ETF did not trade at all, no premium is computed.

Market prices here are NSE's own end-of-day bhavcopy closes, never restated for corporate actions — unlike the price history on StockProof's company pages, which is adjusted. That is deliberate: AMFI never restates a published NAV either, so comparing an adjusted price against an unadjusted NAV would show a growing artificial discount on every ETF that has ever made a payout.