Bursting the Indexing Bubble
By Doug Fabian
At first glance the evidence for S&P 500 index funds seems overwhelming: the S&P is up 32% so far this year; the index beat 75% of all stocks funds last year; plus investment fees and tax liability are minimal given the low portfolio turnover.
It's no wonder then that the Vanguard Index 500 fund was the top-selling fund in 1996, pulling in more than $8 billion for a total asset base of $33 billion today. But don't be fooled: behind the S&P's recent strength lies a shady past.
Buying the Market?
Most investors mistakenly believe that when they purchase an S&P index fund they're "buying the market." However, what they're really getting is a piece of the market, and disproportionate one at that.
That's because the S&P is comprised of large-cap growth issues, which represent just a part of the U.S. economy. Sure these stocks do well during cycles of blue-chip growth, but they fail in small-cap moves. Case in point: the recent small-cap boom.
Since June of this year, small-cap stocks have been surging with close to 80% of all U.S. equity funds beating the S&P index since that time.
To understand these dynamics, it's important to realize that the S&P index is weighted by market capitalization, instead of equal weightings. This means larger-cap multinational stocks such as Coca-Cola, Gillette and Procter & Gamble have a bigger influence on the indice's moves. Thus their recent pullback has hindered the S&P. Couple this with the indice's large-cap composition, and it becomes clear that it can not take advantage of the market's renewed small-cap preference.
Indexing vs. Active Management
While the S&P has outperformed the majority of actively managed funds during certain periods, it's a mistake to think that is does so on a consistent basis.
Why? Because in addition to capturing small-cap moves, actively managed funds are able to position themselves in those stocks leading the market. As we've seen, bull markets are historically driven by specific sectors (energy stocks in the 70's, health care in the 80's and technology in the 90's). While an equity fund manger is able to take advantage of these changes in leadership, the S&P fund is limited to its 500 core holdings which restricts performance.
As the table shows below, the index beat just 15% of active managers in 1977. Likewise, in 1979 that figure was 20%. And more recently, in 1993 the index beat just 40% of active managers. Based on this evidence, it's clear that the index's recent strength is not part of a long-term trend. In fact, Vanguard itself acknowledges this in the Winter 1997 shareholder newsletter, stating that the market's 69% return over the past two years is "abnormal."
Percentage of Funds Outperforming the S&P
| Year
1977 85% 1978 69% 1979 80% 1980 47% 1981 63%
|
Year
1982 62% 1983 40% 1984 22% 1985 26% 1986 24%
|
Year
1988 41% 1989 18% 1990 36% 1991 55% 1992 54%
|
Year
1993 60% 1994 22% 1995 15% 1996 25% 1997 5% (1/1 - 6/30) 79% (6/30 - present) |
What about Fees?
It's true that index funds in general have lower fees than those of their actively-managed counterparts. However, as mentioned above, they are unable to always lock into those sectors outper-forming the market, which hurts performance over the long-term. Actively-traded funds, on the other hand, are able to take advantage of small-cap and sector moves for above-average profits that more than offset expenses and taxes.
Your Best Bet
Forget indexing if your long-term goal is building wealth. Know the market. Be aware of current forces driving prices and take advantage of them using today's best actively-managed funds.
Questions: