Does it make sense to talk about an ETF or index in terms of technical indicators?
Yes, it makes sense. Like Lagerbaer says, the usefulness of technical indicators can not be answered with a simple yes or no. Some people gain something from it, others do not. Aside from this, applying technical indicators (or any other form of technical analysis - like order flow) to instruments which are composed of other instruments, such as indexes (more accurately, a derivative of it), does make sense. There are many theories why this is the case, but personally i believe it is a mixture of self fulfilling prophecy, that the instruments the index is composed of (like the stocks in the S&P500) are traded in similar ways as the index (or rather a trade-able derivative of it like ETFs and futures), and the idea that TA just represents human emotion and interaction in trading. This is a very subjective topic, so take this with a grain of salt, but in contrast to JoeTaxpayer i believe that yields are not necessary in order to use TA successfully. As long as the given instrument is liquid enough, TA can be applied and used to gain an edge. On the other hand, to answer your second question, not all stocks in an index correlate all the time, and not all of them will move in sync with the index. With the disclaimer that I am not a technician, I'd answer yes, it does. SPY (for clarification, an ETF that reflects the S&P 500 index) has dividends, and earnings, therefore a P/E and dividend yield. It would follow that the tools technicians use, such as moving averages, support and resistance levels also apply.  Keep in mind, each and every year, one can take the S&P stocks and break them up, into quintiles or deciles based on return and show that not all stock move in unison. You can break up by industry as well which is what the SPDRs aim to do, and observe the movement of those sub-groups.  But, no, not all the stocks will perform the way the index is predicted to.  (Note - If a technician wishes to correct any key points here, you are welcome to add a note, hopefully, my answer was not biased)
There are some ETF's on the Indian market that invest in broad indexes in other countries Here's an article discussing this  Be aware that such investments carry an additional risk you do not have when investing in your local market, which is 'currency risk'  If for example you invest in a ETF that represents the US S&P500 index, and the US dollar weakens relative to the indian rupee, you could see the value if your investment in the US market go down, even if the index itself is 'up' (but not as much as the change in currency values). A lot of investment advisors recommend that you have at least 75% of your investments in things which are denominated in your local currency (well technically, the same currency as your liabilities), and no more than 25% invested internationally.  In large part the reason for this advice is to reduce your exposure to currency risk. It is not so useful because you are applying it to large capital. Think about Theory of Investment Value. It says that you must find undervalued stocks with whatever ratios and metrics. Now think about the reality of a company. For example, if you are waiting KO (The Coca-Cola Company) to be undervalued for buying it, it might be a bad idea because KO is already an international well known company and KO sells its product almost everywhere...so there are not too many opportunities for growth. Even if KO ratios and metrics says it's a good time to buy because it's undervalued, people might not invest on it because KO doesn't have the same potential to grow as 10 years ago. The best chance to grow is demographics. You are better off either buying ETFs monthly for many years (10 minimum) OR find small-cap and mid-cap companies that have the potential to grow plus their ratios indicate they might be undervalued. If you want your investment to work remember this: stock price growth is nothing more than You might ask yourself. What is your investment profile? Agressive? Speculative? Income? Dividends? Capital preservation? If you want something not too risky: ETFs. And not waste too much time. If you want to get more returns, you have to take more risks: find small-cap and mid-companies that are worth. I hope I helped you! From an article I wrote a while back: “Dalbar Inc., a Boston-based financial services research firm, has been measuring the effects of investors’ decisions to buy, sell, and switch into and out of mutual funds since 1984. The key finding always has been that the average investor earns significantly less than the return reported by their funds. (For the 20 years ended Dec. 31, 2006, the average stock fund investor earned a paltry 4.3 average annual compounded return compared to 11.8 percent for the Standard & Poor’s 500 index.)” It's one thing to look at the indexes. But quite another to understand what other investors are actually getting. The propensity to sell low and buy high is proven by the data Dalbar publishes. And really makes the case to go after the magic S&P - 0.09% gotten from an ETF. Google 'information ratio'. It is better suited to what you want than the Sharpe or Sortino ratios because it only evaluates the *excess* return you get from your investment, ie. return from your investment minus the return from a benchmark investment. The benchmark here could be an index like the S&amp;P500. Do not buy any commodity tracking ETF without reading and understanding the prospectus. Some of these things get exposure to the underlying commodity via swaps or other hocus-pocus derivatives, so you're really buying credit obligations from some bank. Others are futures based, and you need to understand your potential upside AND downside. If you think that oil prices are going to continue to rise, you should look into sector funds, or better yet individual stocks that are in the oil or associated businesses. Alternatively, look at alternative investments like natural gas producers or pipeline operators. Index funds: Some of the funds listed by US SIF are index funds. ETFs: ETFdb has a list, though it's pretty short at the moment. What is your time horizon? Over long horizons, you absolutely want to minimise the expense ratio – a seemingly puny 2% fee p.a. can cost you a third of your savings over 35 years. Over short horizons, the cost of trading in and trading out might matter more. A mutual fund might be front-loaded, i.e. charge a fixed initial percentage when you first purchase it. ETFs, traded daily on an exchange just like a stock, don't have that. What you'll pay there is the broker commission, and the bid-ask spread (and possibly any premium/discount the ETF has vis-a-vis the underlying asset value).  Another thing to keep in mind is tracking error: how closely does the fond mirror the underlying index it attempts to track? More often than not it works against you. However, not sure there is a systematic difference between ETFs and funds there. Size and age of a fund can matter, indeed - I've had new and smallish ETFs that didn't take off close down, so I had to sell and re-allocate the money. Two more minor aspects: Synthetic ETFs and lending to short sellers. 1) Some ETFs are synthetic, that is, they don't buy all the underlying shares replicating the index, actually owning the shares. Instead, they put the money in the bank and enter a swap with a counter-party, typically an investment bank, that promises to pay them the equivalent return of holding that share portfolio. In this case, you have (implicit) credit exposure to that counter-party - if the index performs well, and they don't pay up, well, tough luck. The ETF was relying on that swap, never really held the shares comprising the index, and won't necessarily cough up the difference. 2) In a similar vein, some (non-synthetic) ETFs hold the shares, but then lend them out to short sellers, earning extra money. This will increase the profit of the ETF provider, and potentially decrease your expense ratio (if they pass some of the profit on, or charge lower fees). So, that's a good thing. In case of an operational screw up, or if the short seller can't fulfil their obligations to return the shares, there is a risk of a loss.  These two considerations are not really a factor in normal times (except in improving ETF expense ratios), but during the 2009 meltdown they were floated as things to consider. Mutual funds and ETFs re-invest or pay out dividends. For a given mutual fund, you might be able to choose, while ETFs typically are of one type or the other. Not sure how tax treatment differs there, though, sorry (not something I have to deal with in my jurisdiction).  As a rule of thumb though, as alex vieux says, for a popular index, ETFs will be cheaper over the long term. Very low cost mutual funds, such as Vanguard, might be competitive though. "It's only a ""loss"" if you believe the purpose of indexes is to represent the basket of underlying companies with the highest returns.  But that's simply not true.  An index is just a rules-based way to track/measure a thing.  That thing could be the largest US companies, all the companies in a specific sector, all of the companies in the world, a commodity or basket of commodities... Pretty much anything.  Somebody just has to write down the explanation of what an index tracks, then create ETFs to track the index.  By being a ""passive investor"" you are still making active investing decisions to some degree, in that you need to decide which indexes to passively invest in.  If people are not going to attempt to understand the companies they invest in because they're almost certainly better off indexing (which is fine), then the responsibility must fall on someone to make decisions about what are the best rules for the indexes.  For most of the history of capital markets, good corporate governance has been enforced by shareholders.  If management did something bad, shareholders could vote to replace the Board of Directors and in general they had tools to hold management accountable.  Only in recent years, founders of companies like Google, Facebook, Snap, etc., have attempted to subvert this relationship (public shareholders give a company money, and in return the company must answer to the shareholders) and essentially take money for nothing.  So far (it's still a pretty short experiment) this has worked as long as the share price is going up, but what happens when it doesn't?  What happens when these companies screw up and stop performing well, and there's nothing shareholders can do about it?  Investors who intentionally own individual shares will have little to no leverage to demand change, and passive investors would be stuck with some of their money in these companies with terrible governance - and the precedent would only make dual-class and non-voting shares more attractive for future IPOs, making the problem more prevalent.  If you think it is in your best interest to own the entire S&amp;P 500, *plus* Snap, then just do that.  For every dollar you invest into SPDR or something similar, allocate something like $0.01 into Snap.  It's that simple.  But don't make this out to be a story about how S&amp;P is anti-free markets or doing a disservice to investors.  That's ridiculous.  If most Americans are just going to blindly put their retirement savings into index funds without bothering to understand them (again, which is fine) then somebody needs to make sure the companies in said indexes are good companies.  Historically, a company with zero corporate governance and entrenched management =/= a ""good company"".  S&amp;P realized this and decided to set a good precedent for US equity markets rather than a very bad precedent.  You wanna buy shares with no voting rights?  Go for it.  But that should be your decision, not a default inclusion in major indexes." &gt; So what’s the problem? When investors put their money in an index like the S&amp;P 500, they believe that they are just investing in “the market”, broadly. But now, these for-profit indices have made an active decision to exclude certain stocks on the basis of their voting structures.   The author doesn't seem to understand the difference between the companies creating the passive funds that track the indices and the companies creating the indices that are being tracked. Indices have always been subject to somewhat arbitrary rules for what is being included and how its value is calculated. So this article is completely missing the point. The Japanese stock market offers a wide selection of popular ETFs tracking the various indices and sub-indices of the Tokyo Stock Exchange.  See this page from the Japan Exchange Group site for a detailed listing of the ETFs being offered on the Tokyo exchange. As you have suggested, one would expect that Japanese investors would be reluctant to track the local market indices because of the relatively poor performance of the Japanese markets over the last couple of decades.  However, this does not appear to be the case.  In fact, there seems to be a heavy bias towards Tokyo indices as measured by the NAV/Market Cap of listed ETFs.  The main Tokyo indices - the broad TOPIX and the large cap Nikkei - dominate investor choice. The big five ETFs tracking the Nikkei 225 have a total net asset value of 8.5Trillion Yen (72Billion USD), while the big four ETFs tracking the TOPIX have a total net asset value of 8.0Trillion Yen (68Billion USD).  Compare this to the small net asset values of those Tokyo listed ETFs tracking the S&P500 or the EURO STOXX 50.  For example, the largest S&P500 tracker is the Nikko Asset Management S&P500 ETF with net asset value of just 67Million USD and almost zero liquidity.  If I remember my stereotypes correctly, it is the Japanese housewife that controls the household budget and investment decisions, and the Japanese housewife is famously conservative and patriotic with their investment choices.  Japanese government bonds have yielded next to nothing for as long as I can remember, yet they remain the first choice amongst housewives.  The 1.3% yield on a Nikkei 225 ETF looks positively generous by comparison and so will carry some temptations. Why don't you look at the actual funds and etfs in question rather than seeking a general conclusion about all pairs of funds and etfs?  For example, Vanguard's total stock market index fund (VTSAX) and ETF (VTI).  Comparing the two on yahoo finance I find no difference over the last 5 years visually.  For a different pair of funds you may find something very slightly different.   In many cases the index fund and ETF will not have the same benchmark and fees so comparisons get a little more cloudy.  I recall a while ago there was an article that was pointing out that at the time emerging market ETF's had higher fees than corresponding index funds.  For this reason I think you should examine your question on a case-by-case basis.  Index fund and ETF returns are all publicly available so you don't have to guess. "You said your strategy was to put it into a index fund.  But then you asked about setting  stock limits.   I'm confused. Funds usually trade at their price at the end of the day, so you shouldn't try to time this at all. Just place your order. If you are buying ETFs, there is going to be so much volume on the market that your small trade is going to have no impact on the price. You should just place a market order. A market order is an order to buy or   sell a stock at the current market   price. A limit order is an order to buy or   sell a security at a specific price. In the US, when you place a trade with any broker, you can either place a limit order or a market order.  A market order just fills your order with the next best sellers in line.  If you place an order for 100 shares, the sellers willing to sell 100 shares at the lowest price will be matched with your order (sometimes you may get 50 shares at one price and 50 shares at a slightly different price).    If your stock has a lot of volatility and you place a market order for a small amount of shares,  you will get the best price. If you place a limit order, you specify the price at which you want to buy shares.  Your order will then only be filled with sellers willing to sell at that price or lower (i.e. they must be at least as good as you specified).  This means you could place an order at a limit that does not get filled (the stock could move in a direction away from your limit price).  If you really want to own the stock, you shouldn't use a limit order.  You shouldn't only use a limit order if you want to tell your broker ""I will only buy this stock at this price or better.""  p.s. Every day that passes is NOT a waste.  It's just a day that you've decided investing in cash is safer than investing in the market." More importantly, index funds are denominated in specific currencies. You can't buy or sell an index, so it can be dimensionless. Anything you actually do to track the index involves real amounts of real money. An index fund is inherently diversified across its index -- no one stock will either make or break the results. In that case it's a matter of picking the index(es) you want to put the money into. ETFs do permit smaller initial purchases, which would let you do a reasonable mix of sectors. (That seems to be the one advantage of ETFs over traditional funds...?) A fourteen-year-old can invest a few thousand into commuting to a part-time job or an education. If you can wait five years for a couple hundred you can wait two to four years for a car (or gas money) or a class (or some textbooks.)