What's the justification for the DJIA being share-price weighted?
The share-price weighting of the DJIA is a historical artifact.  The DJIA remains share-price weighted today because that's the way it has always been done, and we're talking about an index with more than a hundred years' history.  The DJIA was first calculated on May 26, 1896. Perhaps, back then, price-weighting was the most straight-forward & feasible way to calculate it each day.  You're right that it doesn't make a lot of sense, and that's why the S&P500 and other indexes are better barometers.
"We are exactly where we should be for pricing. We are not over valued.  The largest bull market in history is following the longest stagnation in history, we're merely playing catch up. Of course, it was spurred after Trump won because the business sector assumed he would curtail regulation - one thing we're pretty sure he'll accomplish because his business interests are alligned.  Recommended reading outlining why we are appropriately valued: Stocks for the Long Run by Jeremy Seigel, Prof of finance at Wharton.   I'm all for looking out for people's benefit. As an investment advisor, I have to abide by the fidicuary rule myself. I'm sure there's another side to the argument for them removing the rule. As Robert Shiller, Nobel laureate in economics, put it, ""We need the right regulation, not more or less."" Perhaps it's not correct in it's current state. But I'm not a legislative expert, maybe someone can elaborate.  We need to be wary about how quick we are to judge on these rulings. Many comments are not experts and our confirmation bias will drive people to misinformation. We judge ourselves on our intentions and others on their actions." Was already priced in. The market is smarter than ratings agencies that are fighting to stay relevant by trying to instill crisis mode on a global economy that is already very fragile. Their only announcements nowadays are on companies/nations that are on the front page of the global newswire. Almost seems like they want the global economy to tank on their information and ratings cuts.  Too bad nobody really cares about the agencies anymore. My logic for prices was this: S&amp;P500/indexes price is based on the overall market for S&amp;P500, generally. So my thought was that it should be correlated to the price of the Vix because as market volatility occurred, the price of the Vix would go up and vice Versa when the market goes down. However, I just started running these analyses as a side project and am still learning the right measures to make better observations. So I'm all for any advice in that regard. "Remember that in most news outlets journalists do not get to pick the titles of their articles.  That's up to the editor.  So even though the article was primarily about ETFs, the reporter made the mistake of including some tangential references to mutual funds.  The editor then saw that the article talked about ETFs and mutual funds and -- knowing even less about the subject matter than the reporter, but recognizing that more readers' eyeballs would be attracted to a headline about mutual funds than to a headline about ETFs -- went with the ""shocking"" headline about the former. In any case, as you already pointed out, ETFs need to know their value throughout the day, as do the investors in that ETF.  Even momentary outages of price sources can be disastrous. Although mutual funds do not generally make transactions throughout the day, and fund investors are not typically interested in the fund's NAV more than once per day, the fund managers don't just sit around all day doing nothing and then press a couple buttons before the market closes.  They do watch their NAV very closely during the day and think very carefully about which buttons to press at the end of the day.  If their source of stock price data goes offline, then they're impacted almost as severely as -- if less visibly than -- an ETF. Asking Yahoo for prices seems straightforward, but (1) you get what you pay for, and (2) these fund companies are built on massive automated infrastructures that expect to receive their data from a certain source in a certain way at a certain time.  (And they pay a lot of money in order to be able to expect that.)  It would be quite difficult to just feed in manual data, although in the end I suspect some of these companies did just that.  Either they fell back to a secondary data supplier, or they manually constructed datasets for their programs to consume." Well, you can't really have it both ways. You said that they were both using the same method, but, in fact, they aren't. You can call the weighting biased, but in fact if appears that BPP is doing little or minimal weighting, and yet still is showing that prices, in general, are mapping similarly to the BLS published CPI.   Unless you're arguing an MIT 'academic conspiracy' (and even if you are), I think you've failed to make your case.  BPP is independant, it uses a different methodology, and yet the results confirm those of the BLS. I think the point is that m2 is 13.7 trillion usd, the Swiss investment is not even *half* a percent.  The us equities marker valuation is larger at 22.5 trillion USD. Dumping an extra 100 bil usd is too little to do anything. Even dumping a trillion USD  is a relatively small number. "In addition to the answers provided above, the weight the Dow uses to determine the index is not the market capitalization of the company involved. That means that companies like Google and Apple with very high share prices and no particular inclination to split could adversely effect the Dow, turning it into essentially the ""Apple and Google and then some other companies"" Industrial Average. The highest share price Dow company right now, IIRC, is IBM. Both Google and Apple would have three times the influence on the Index as IBM does now." "In a cap-weighted fund, the fund itself isn't buying or selling at all (except to support redemptions or purchases of the fund). As the value of a stock in the index goes up, then its value in the fund goes up naturally. This is the advantage of a cap-weighted fund, that it doesn't have to trade (buy and sell), it just sits on the stocks. That makes a cap-weighted fund inexpensive (low trading costs) and tax-efficient (doesn't trigger capital gains due to sales). The buying high and selling low referred to by ""fundamental indexation"" advocates like Wisdom Tree is buying high and selling low on the part of the investor. That is, when you purchase the market-cap-weighted fund, at that time that you purchase, you will spend more on the higher-priced stocks, just because they account for more of the value of the fund, and less money goes to the cheaper stocks which account for less of the value of the fund. In the prospectus for a fund they should tell you which index they use, and if the prospectus doesn't describe the weighting of the index, you could do a web search for the index name and find out how that index is constructed. A market-cap-weighted fund is the standard kind of weighting which is what you get if you buy the stocks in the index and then hold them without buying or selling. Most of the famous indexes (e.g. S&P500) are cap-weighted, with the notable exception of the Dow Jones Industrial Average which is ""price-weighted"" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-weighted_index. Price-weighting is just an archaic tradition, not something one would use for a new index design today. A fund weighted by ""fundamentals"" or equal-weighted, rather than cap-weighted, is effectively doing a kind of rebalancing, selling what's gone up to buy more of what's gone down. Rather than buying an exotic fund, you could get a similar effect by buying a balanced fund (one that mixes stocks and bonds). Then when stocks go up, your fund would sell them and buy bonds, and the fund would sell the most of the highest-market-cap stocks that make up more of the index. And vice versa of course. But the fundamental-weighted funds are fine, the more important considerations include your stocks vs. bonds percentages (asset allocation) and whether you make irrational trades instead of sticking to a plan." As I understand it, it was a mark to market loss. Which means that JPM has booked an unrealized loss while some hedge funds have booked unrealized gains. Now over the next few months as JPM tries to unwind he trades, these losses will be realized. "The amount, reliability and frequency of dividends paid by an ETF other than a stock, such as an index or mutual fund, is a function of the agreement under which the ETF was established by the managing or issuing company (or companies), and the ""basket"" of investments that a share in the fund represents.  Let's say you invest in a DJIA-based index fund, for instance Dow Diamonds (DIA), which is traded on several exchanges including NASDAQ and AMEX. One share of this fund is currently worth $163.45 (Jan 22 2014 14:11 CDT) while the DJIA itself is $16,381.38 as of the same time, so one share of the ETF represents approximately 1% of the index it tracks. The ETF tracks the index by buying and selling shares of the blue chips proportional to total invested value of the fund, to maintain the same weighted percentages of the same stocks that make up the index. McDonald's, for instance, has an applied weight that makes the share price of MCD stock roughly 5% of the total DJIA value, and therefore roughly 5% of the price of 100 shares of DIA. Now, let's say MCD issued a dividend to shareholders of, say, $.20 per share. By buying 100 shares of DIA, you own, through the fund, approximately five MCD shares, and would theoretically be entitled to $1 in dividends. However, keep in mind that you do not own these shares directly, as you would if you spent $16k buying the correct percentage of all the shares directly off the exchange. You instead own shares in the DIA fund, basically giving you an interest in some investment bank that maintains a pool of blue-chips to back the fund shares. Whether the fund pays dividends or not depends on the rules under which that fund was set up. The investment bank may keep all the dividends itself, to cover the expenses inherent in managing the fund (paying fund management personnel and floor traders, covering losses versus the listed price based on bid-ask parity, etc), or it may pay some percentage of total dividends received from stock holdings. However, it will virtually never transparently cut you a check in the amount of your proportional holding of an indexed investment as if you held those stocks directly. In the case of the DIA, the fund pays dividends monthly, at a yield of 2.08%, virtually identical to the actual weighted DJIA yield (2.09%) but lower than the per-share mean yield of the ""DJI 30"" (2.78%). Differences between index yields and ETF yields can be reflected in the share price of the ETF versus the actual index; 100 shares of DIA would cost $16,345 versus the actual index price of 16,381.38, a delta of $(36.38) or -0.2% from the actual index price. That difference can be attributed to many things, but fundamentally it's because owning the DIA is not the exact same thing as owning the correct proportion of shares making up the DJIA. However, because of what index funds represent, this difference is very small because investors expect to get the price for the ETF that is inherent in the real-time index." That is a pretty exclusive club and for the most part they are not interested in highly volatile companies like Apple and Google. Sure, IBM is part of the DJIA, but that is about as stalwart as you can get these days. The typical profile for a DJIA stock would be one that pays fairly predictable dividends, has been around since money was invented, and are not going anywhere unless the apocalypse really happens this year. In summary, DJIA is the boring reliable company index. "From How are indexes weighted?: Market-capitalization weighted indexes (or market cap- or cap-weighted   indexes) weight their securities by market value as measured by   capitalization: that is, current security price * outstanding shares.   The vast majority of equity indexes today are cap-weighted, including   the S&P 500 and the FTSE 100. In a cap-weighted index, changes in the   market value of larger securities move the index’s overall trajectory   more than those of smaller ones. If the fund you are referencing is an ETF then there may be some work to do to figure out what underlying securities to use when handling Creation and Redemption units as an ETF will generally have shares created in 50,000 shares at a time through Authorized Participants. If the fund you are referencing is an open-end fund then there is still cash flows to manage in the fund as the fund has create and redeem shares in on a daily basis. Note in both cases that there can be updates to an index such as quarterly rebalancing of outstanding share counts, changes in members because of mergers, acquisitions or spin-offs and possibly a few other factors. How to Beat the Benchmark has a piece that may also be useful here for those indices with many members from 1998: As you can see, its TE is also persistently positive, but if anything   seems to be declining over time. In fact, the average net TE for the   whole period is +0.155% per month, or an astounding +1.88% pa net   after expenses. The fund expense ratio is 0.61% annually, for a   whopping before expense TE of +2.5% annually. This is once again   highly statistically significant, with p values of 0.015 after   expenses and 0.0022 before expenses. (The SD of the TE is higher for   DFSCX than for NAESX, lowering its degree of statistical   significance.) It is remarkable enough for any fund to beat its   benchmark by 2.5% annually over 17 years, but it is downright eerie to   see this done by an index fund. To complete the picture, since 1992 the Vanguard Extended Index Fund   has beaten its benchmark (the Wilshire 4500) by 0.56% per year after   expenses (0.81% net of expenses), and even the Vanguard Index Trust   500 has beaten its benchmark by a razor thin 0.08% annually before   (but not after) expenses in the same period. So what is going on here? A hint is found in DFA's 1996 Reference   Guide: The 9-10 Portfolio captures the return behavior of U.S. small company stocks as identified by Rolf Banz and other academic   researchers. Dimensional employs a ""patient buyer"" discount block   trading strategy which has resulted in negative total trading costs,   despite the poor liquidity of small company stocks. Beginning in 1982,   Ibbotson Associates of Chicago has used the 9-10 Portfolio results to   calculate the performance of small company stocks for their Stocks,   Bonds, Bills, and Inflation yearbook. A small cap index fund cannot possibly own all of the thousands of   stocks in its benchmark; instead it owns a ""representative sample.""   Further, these stocks are usually thinly traded, with wide bid/ask   spreads. In essence what the folks at DFA learned was that they could   tell the market makers in these stocks, ""Look old chaps, we don't have   to own your stock, and unless you let us inside your spread, we'll   pitch our tents elsewhere. Further, we're prepared to wait until a   motivated seller wishes to unload a large block."" In a sense, this   gives the fund the luxury of picking and choosing stocks at prices   more favorable than generally available. Hence, higher long term   returns. It appears that Vanguard did not tumble onto this until a   decade later, but tumble they did. To complete the picture, this strategy works best in the thinnest   markets, so the excess returns are greatest in the smallest stocks,   which is why the positive TE is greatest for the DFA 9-10 Fund, less   in the Vanguard Small Cap Fund, less still in the Vanguard Index   Extended Fund, and minuscule with the S&P500. There are some who say the biggest joke in the world of finance is the   idea of value added active management. If so, then the punch line   seems to be this: If you really want to beat the indexes, then you   gotta buy an index fund." "If you are a ""small"" investor (namely, not an accredited investor), then the transaction costs (commissions) for purchasing the stocks while attempting to duplicate DJIA will defeat any benefit. My personal preference is to purchase mutual funds rather than ETFs." To be fair, the analyst is talking about the book value of the firm. Basically, the value of all the stuff it owns now. There are plenty of companies with negative book value that can justify a positive share price. Ford, for instance, had negative book value but positive future earnings. "The dow jones is an index of 30 stocks that's weighted based on the price per share of these stocks. To calculate the DJIA, the sum of the prices of all 30 stocks is divided by a divisor, the Dow Divisor. The divisor is adjusted in case of stock splits, spinoffs or similar structural changes, to ensure that such events do not in themselves alter the numerical value of the DJIA.  Prices are the result of supply and demand. Demand is defined as simply as ""I want this badly enough to pay cash for it"", ""supply is ""I own this and don't want to own it, therefore I'll sell it""  When investors go about deciding they'd like to buy some stock from people who own it and are wanting to sell it, a market is generated and a price both are willing to sell/buy at is found. If the price is too high/low, you won't sell or buy. The price has to be ""right"" based on your own personal valuation.   Since these trades are done through an exchange and are so common, literally millions of shares are traded per day, you get the best price available at that moment for your shares. If person A is only willing to give you 100 dollars and person B is willing to give you 100.01, screw person A. I'm selling shares to person B.  When this done on a macro-level (millions of shares traded per day) the exchanges will track and make public the ""price movement"" of what the market is willing to give for each and every publicly traded stock.  TLDR: SUPPLY AND DEMAND. DOW USES THEIR OWN METHODS."