In any purchase, whether an automobile or a pair of jeans, consumers make buying decisions using certain criteria. They at least want decent quality at a fair price. But a smart shopper's dream is to find above-average quality at a below-average price--like buying a Camry for the price of a Corolla.
- Hunt down missing deductions in '06 tax forms
- Nearly forgotten Coverdell accounts still have zing
- Budgeting a chore, but it has its rewards
- Rising medicare costs expected to take toll
- The savings game
- The Leckey file
- Getting started
- Spending smart
- Taking stock
- Dividends retain their pull for investors
- The week ahead
The main alternative to buying an index fund is to buy an actively managed fund. Managed stock funds are operated by professional money managers who try to pick winning stocks. Winning is typically defined as beating the established index.
Think about that. You're paying professionals, and all they have to do is beat someone who does nothing. That's not an accomplishment. That's the least they could do for their pay. But most fail.
That sets up the long-standing argument between the stock-pickers and the indexers. And it's no wonder consumers are confused. Evidence supports the counterintuitive ideas that passive management is better than active management, and you don't get what you pay for--both of which are rarely true in other parts of consumers' lives.
"Professionals [usually] add value to our lives. The doctors, lawyers and dentists add value," said Gus Sauter, chief investment officer for the Vanguard Group, a leader in index funds. "But with money managers, the only way they can add value for one investor is to take it away from somebody else. Outperformance is a zero-sum game. So there is no aggregate value added.
"But people just assume that these professional money managers add value."
In 2006, 76 percent of active funds investing in large U.S. companies failed to beat a large-company stock index benchmark, the MSCI U.S. Prime Market 750, according to data from Morningstar Inc.
For large value funds, which try to pick undervalued stocks, 94 percent of active funds failed to beat the value index. Here are reasons to buy index funds, based on typical criteria consumers would use for any purchase:
It was big news at the end of last year when one stock-picker--Bill Miller, manager of the Legg Mason Value Trust mutual fund--failed to beat his benchmark. He had beaten the S&P 500 for 15 straight years.
So, it's extraordinary and newsworthy when a stock-picker can outperform an index over time. That means index funds are high quality because most actively managed funds can't beat them consistently. In many years, index funds beat about three-quarters of actively managed funds. And if you pick a fund that outperforms the index one year, it frequently has a hard time repeating that the following year.
Index funds are cheaper than actively managed funds because you don't have to pay a stock-picker or a bond-picker. And index funds don't buy and sell stocks as frequently as managed funds, so the transaction costs and tax effects are likely to be much lower. A key reason index funds are high quality is because they are cheap.
An index fund won't protect you from general market downturns, but you won't see years where your fund does terribly compared with the index. You're also protected against bad stock-pickers who stray from the types of stock you want to own. So, like the factory warranty on a refrigerator, you're protected from something unusually bad happening.
"You have a great deal of certainty in advance that the index fund will provide the type of return you're looking for," Sauter said. "There really are no surprises. You get what you actually want to buy and you get it at a reasonable price."
-- Cost of ownership.