Index funds boomed well beyond Vanguard. More than 360 index-based stock and bond mutual funds were available to investors as of last year, and assets in those types of funds have swelled from $27 billion in 1993 to more than $1.4 trillion as of June, according to the Investment Company Institute.
Exchange-traded funds, which track an index but are traded like stocks, have also proliferated and exploded in popularity, with nearly 1,000 now on the market.
In all, investors have poured $2.3 trillion into passive funds and ETFs, according to Morningstar. That's still far behind the $7.2 trillion in actively managed funds. But index funds are growing faster and attracting more money than actively managed funds. For the 12 months ending in July, $189 billion flowed into passively managed funds and ETFs, compared with $105 billion for their actively managed counterparts.
Money-management companies have taken indexing in a host of directions, challenging the original idea of owning the broad market. The indexing movement has been splintered into scores of smaller offerings, with mutual funds and, in particular, ETFs that slice and dice the investable universe into narrow bits.
"People are really just throwing anything at the wall to see what is going to stick," says Morningstar's Culloton.
Companies such as Arnott's Research Affiliates and Wisdom Tree now offer funds based on "fundamentally weighted indexes," which use factors other than traditional market capitalization to determine the balance of their holdings.
Bogle and others in his camp insist those new variations aren't indexing -- that by using factors other than market capitalization, the new funds don't aim to simply replicate the market but instead are making more active bets in an attempt to produce outsize returns.
The lasting legacy of the first index mutual fund has yet to be determined, but it's clear that index funds are here to stay. "It was a brilliant idea," says Arnott. "It's an idea that has stood the test of time."
This article was reported by Yuval Rosenberg for The Fiscal Times.
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
Quite well, actually. I switched from a managed large cap value fund to an S&P 500 index fund which has outperformed the fund from which I switched. In the process, I saved nearly 3/4 of a point in expenses, and as I stated, have outperformed it's managed counterpart. The Vanguard fund also has a higher dividend rate, further increasing its attractiveness.
You're one of those guys that only looks at the index and not the reinvestment of dividends, eh?
Of course, in an era in which the markets are dominated by speculators, fast traders, and the Wall Street Geese, the underlying premise that stocks are rationally priced is probably a crock. It's just a casino, and one that's being manipulated in a way that does the buy-and-hold investor no good.
Index funds are a marketing gimmick. They are poor over the long term. Think about it - they rise as the market goes up and fall as the market inevitably comes back down. You almost never get any capital gains because they keep going up & down like a yoyo. The gains are never locked in because they don't sell. And, in fact, on the rare occasions that they do, index funds tend to buy high & sell low - ex. when a stock in the S&P500 index tanks (such as AIG), the folks that manage the index have to remove that stock and replace it with another - so what do they do - sell the stock in the index usually at a loss because it's low, and replace it by buying another stock usually at a high valuation. This is a bad recipe.
Index funds are usually rationalized by their low cost. Remember, you usually get what you pay for. McDonald's food is relatively low cost but would you rather have a Big Mac or dinner at The Four Seasons?
If index funds really are the best way to invest, then how do you explain the existence of traders and professional money managers?
Copyright © 2013 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Quotes are real-time for NASDAQ, NYSE and AMEX. See delay times for other exchanges.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Thomson Reuters (click for restrictions). Real-time quotes provided by BATS Exchange. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Interactive Data Real-Time Services. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by SIX Financial Information.
[BRIEFING.COM] Stocks entered the weekend on a mixed note as the S&P 500 shed 0.1% while the Dow ended with a gain of 0.1%.
The major averages began the day on a lower note as nine of ten sectors saw losses of more than 0.5%.
The consumer staples sector was the lone exception as the group spent the entire day in positive territory thanks to the relative strength of Dow component Procter & Gamble (PG 81.89, +3.19). The second-largest staple stock advanced ... More
More Market News
|There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later.|