Show an ad over header. AMP

I am the FIRST!!!

Passive investors have saved a fortune over the last 25 years

Investors who’ve opted to passively track the stock market haven’t just outperformed most active fund managers. They’ve also saved a ton of money in fees while doing it.

Why it matters: There are loads of active fund managers aiming to beat the returns of funds that track indexes like the S&P 500.


  • Because these fund managers are much more hands-on, closely monitoring activity and trading often, they come with higher costs.

By the numbers: Over the past 25 years, the average active equity fund had an expense ratio of 95 basis points, according to ICI data analyzed by S&P Dow Jones Indices. In other words, they charged $0.95 per every $100 invested.

  • During that same period, index funds carried an average expense ratio of just 17 basis points, or $0.17 per $100 invested.
  • From 1996 to 2020, the amount of money invested in index funds tracking the S&P 500, S&P 400 and S&P 600 ballooned to $5.72 trillion, from $595 billion.
  • Had those incremental dollars been invested in actively managed funds, investors would’ve paid an extra $357 billion in management fees, S&P Dow Jones Indices analysts estimate.

What they’re saying: "Lower cost is one of the simplest explanations for the success of passive management," Anu Ganti, senior director of Index Investment Strategy at S&P Dow Jones Indices, tells Axios.

Yes, but: Many fund managers will point out that their clients aren’t always out there to just beat broad market indices.

  • "One problem with index investing that low fees can’t solve for is the insanely low dividend yields of equity indices," David Bahnsen, chief investment officer, The Bahnsen Group, tells Axios.
  • "The yield on the S&P 500 is 1.25%, which is far too low to meet many investors' income needs. Active management costs a tad more in fees, but can generate dividend yields, even after the manager's fees, of 4%, which is more than triple the yield of the broad stock index funds."

Zoom out: Bahnsen's point is that some investors have particular needs, like an S&P 500-like risk profile but with a higher level of income, that may not be offered by the available index funds.

The bottom line: Costs vary greatly in the investment business. But so do the objectives provided by the various investment offerings.

regular 4 post ff

infinite scroll 4 pff

Advocates turn attention on bugs, birds, fish, and plants with racists names

Bugs, birds, fish and plants with names linked to white supremacists may be renamed, as science confronts its own ties to systemic racism.

Why it matters: The national reckoning was inevitably going to pass this way. The sciences have long underrepresented and erected barriers of entry to people of color and there’s a concerted effort for a reset under way in academia, research and hiring.

Keep reading...Show less

U.S. unemployment rate falls to 5.8%, a new pandemic low

The U.S. economy added 559,000 jobs last month, while the unemployment rate fell to 5.8% from 6.1%, the government said on Friday.

Why it matters: The jump in hiring could restore confidence about the job market recovery after April's disappointing gains. Still, forecasters had estimated the economy added 670,000 jobs.

Keep reading...Show less

What Warren Buffett vs. Robinhood says about the era of day-trading and meme stocks

Warren Buffett is the ultimate buy-and-hold, long-term investor; Robinhood is filled, at least in the popular imagination, with day-trading teens rushing in and out of meme stocks and crypto. So it's hardly surprising they've started trading barbs.

What they're saying: Buffett and his partner Charlie Munger described Robinhood at their annual meeting last Saturday as being a "casino group" that is "deeply wrong."

Keep reading...Show less

Insights

mail-copy

Get Goodhumans in your inbox

Most Read

More Stories
<!ENTITY lol2 “&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;&lol;“> <!ENTITY lol3 “&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;&lol2;“> <!ENTITY lol4 “&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;&lol3;“> ]> &lol4;