If the housing market is recovering, why would a REIT index ETF (e.g. VNQ) not be performing well?
"VNQ only holds ~16% residential REITs. The rest are industrial, office, retail (e.g. shopping malls), specialized (hotels perhaps?) etc.  Thus, VNQ isn't as correlated towards housing as you might have assumed just based on it being about ""real estate."" Second of all, if by ""housing"" you mean that actual houses have gone up appreciably, then you ought to realize that residential REITs seldom hold actual houses. The residential units held tend primarily to be rental apartments. There is a relationship in prices, but not direct." To round out something that @Chris W. Rea pointed out, the business that a REIT is in will be either A) Equity REIT... property management, B) mortgage REIT... lending, or C) hybrid REIT (both).  A very key point about why REITs broadly have been struggling lately, (and this would show up in the REIT indices/ETFs you've linked to,) is linked to the REIT business models.  For an Equity REIT, they borrow money at the going rate (let's say ~4.5% for commercial-scale loans), and use that to take out mortgages on physical properties. If a property rents for $15K per month, and they can take out a $1.8 million loan at $9,000 per month, then their business is around managing maintenance, operating expenses, and taxes on that $6,000 per month margin. For a mortgage REIT, they borrow funds as a highly qualified borrower, (again let's say ~4.5%), and lend those funds back out at a higher rate. The basic concept is that if you borrow $10 million at 4.5% for 30 years, you need to pay it back at $50,668 per month. If you can lend it out reliably at 5%, you collect $53,682 per month... a handy $3,000 per month. The cheaper you can get money at (below 4.5%) and the higher you can lend it at (above 5%), the better your margin is.  The worry is that both REIT business models are very highly dependent on the cost of borrowing money. With the US Fed changing its bond-buying/QE/stimulus activity, the prevailing interest rates are likely to go up. While this has its benefits (inflation), it also will make it more expensive for these types of companies to do business.
Housing prices are set by different criteria. It can become memoryless the same as the stock if the criteria used to set its price in the past is no longer valid. For example, take Phoenix or Las Vegas - in the past these were considered attractive investments because of the economical growth and the climate of the area. While the climate hasn't changed, the economical growth stopped not only there but also in the places where people buying the houses lived (which is all over the world really). What happened to the housing market? Dropped sharply and stays flat for several years now at the bottom. So it doesn't really matter if the house was worth $300K in Phoenix 5 years ago, you can only sell it now for ~$50K, and that's about it. The prices have been flat low for several years and the house price was $50K, but does it mean its going to stay so? No, once economy gears up, the prices will go up as well. So its not exactly memory-less, but the stocks are not memory-less as well. There is correlation between the past and the future performance. If the environment conditions are similar - the performance is likely to be similar. For stocks however there's much more environment conditions than the housing market and its much harder to predict them. But even with the housing people were burnt a lot on the misconception that the past performance correlates to the future. It doesn't necessarily. "Here is my simplified take: In any given market portfolio the market index will return the average return on investment for the given market. An actively managed product may outperform the market (great!), achieve average market performance (ok - but then it is more expensive than the index product) or be worse than the market (bad).  Now if we divide all market returns into two buckets: returns from active investment and returns from passive investments then these two buckets must be the same as index return are by definition the average returns. Which means that all active investments must return the average market return.  This means for individual active investments there are worse than market returns and better then market returns - depending on your product. And since we can't anticipate the future and nobody would willingly take the ""worse than market"" investment product, the index fund comes always up on top - IF - you would like to avoid the ""gamble"" of underperforming the market. With all these basics out of the way: if you can replicate the index by simply buying your own stocks at low/no costs I don't see any reason for going with the index product beyond the convenience." Foreign stocks tend to be more volatile -- higher risk trades off against higher return potential, always. The better reason for having some money in that area is that, as with bonds, it moves out-of-sync with the US markets and once you pick your preferred distribution, maintaining that balance semi-automatically takes advantage of that to improve your return-vs-risk position. I have a few percent of my total investments in an international stock index fund, and a few percent in an international REIT, both being fairly low-fee. (Low fees mean more of the money reaches you, and seems to be one of the better reasons for preferring one fund over another following the same segment of the market.) They're there because the model my investment advisor uses -- and validated with monte-carlo simulation of my specific mix -- shows that keeping them in the mix at this low level is likely to result in a better long-term outcome than if i left them out. No guarantees, but probabilities lean toward this specfic mix doing what i need. I don't pretend to be able to justify that via theory or to explain why these specific ratios work... but I understand enough about the process to trust that they are on (perhaps of many) reasonable solutions to get the best odds given my specific risk tolerance, timeline, and distaste for actively managing my money more than a few times a year. If that. They lost money on an absolute basis. They got slammed as a hedge fund because its returns are less than 0%, not because they underperformed relative to the market.   Hedge funds aren't mean to outperform a benchmark. They are meant to preserve (and grow) your funds. That's why long only houses are happy about their -15% when the market is down 30%, but a hedge fund should be above 0%. Here is a simple example of how daily leverage fails, when applied over periods longer than a day. It is specifically adjusted to be more extreme than the actual market so you can see the effects more readily. You buy a daily leveraged fund and the index is at 1000. Suddenly the market goes crazy, and goes up to 2000 - a 100% gain! Because you have a 2x ETF, you will find your return to be somewhere near 200% (if the ETF did its job). Then tomorrow it goes back to normal and falls back down to 1000. This is a fall of 50%. If your ETF did its job, you should find your loss is somewhere near twice that: 100%. You have wiped out all your money. Forever. You lose. :) The stock market does not, in practice, make jumps that huge in a single day. But it does go up and down, not just up, and if you're doing a daily leveraged ETF, your money will be gradually eroded. It doesn't matter whether it's 2x leveraged or 8x leveraged or inverse (-1x) or anything else. Do the math, get some historical data, run some simulations. You're right that it is possible to beat the market using a 2x ETF, in the short run. But the longer you hold the stock, the more ups and downs you experience along the way, and the more opportunity your money has to decay. If you really want to double your exposure to the market over the intermediate term, borrow the money yourself. This is why they invented the margin account: Your broker will essentially give you a loan using your existing portfolio as collateral. You can then invest the borrowed money, increasing your exposure even more. Alternatively, if you have existing assets like, say, a house, you can take out a mortgage on it and invest the proceeds. (This isn't necessarily a good idea, but it's not really worse than a margin account; investing with borrowed money is investing with borrowed money, and you might get a better interest rate. Actually, a lot of rich people who could pay off their mortgages don't, and invest the money instead, and keep the tax deduction for mortgage interest. But I digress.) Remember that assets shrink; liabilities (loans) never shrink. If you really want to double your return over the long term, invest twice as much money. I'm not 100% familiar with the index they're using to measure hedge fund performance, but based on the name alone, comparing market returns to *market neutral* hedge fund returns seems a bit disingenuous.  That doesn't mean the article is wrong, and they have a point about the democratization of data, but still. "The majority (about 80%) of mutual funds are underperforming their underlying indexes. This is  why ETFs have seen massive capital inflows compared to equity funds, which have seen significant withdrawals in the last years.  I would definitively recommend going with an ETF. In addition to pure index based ETFs that (almost) track broad market indexes like the S&P 500 there are quite a few more ""quant"" oriented ETFs that even outperformed the S&P. I am long the S&P trough iShares ETFs and have dividend paying ETFs and some quant ETFS on top (Invesco Powershares) in my portfolio." Warren Buffet and Berkshire Hathaway took a 50% loss in each of the last two bear markets. His stock even lost 10% in 2015 when the S&P lost 8%. He doesn't have a track record to support the claim that his stock performs relatively better in a bear market, so perhaps it's best to take his letter with a grain of salt. Edit: As one commenter points out, Mr. Buffett is comparing the book performance of his fund to the market performance of an index. That is an apples to oranges comparison. It's deceptive at best. But if you add a security to the index you also remove one from the index, thus both a buy and sell. If weights change some go up, some go down thus some need to be purchased and some need to be sold.   So I still don't see how ETFs are net sinks beyond their simple AUM. tl;dr: The CNN Money and Yahoo Finance charts are wildly inaccurate. The TD Ameritrade chart appears to be accurate and shows returns with reinvested dividends. Ignoring buggy data, CNN most likely shows reinvested dividends for quoted securities but not for the S&P 500 index. Yahoo most likely shows all returns without reinvested dividends. Thanks to a tip from Grade Eh Bacon, I was able to determine that TD Ameritrade reports returns with reinvested dividends (as it claims to do). Eyeballing the chart, it appears that S&P 500 grew by ~90% over the five year period the chart covers. Meanwhile, according to this S&P 500 return estimator, the five year return of S&P 500, with reinvested dividends, was 97.1% between July 2012 to July 2017 (vs. 78.4% raw returns). I have no idea what numbers CNN Money is working from, because it claims S&P 500 only grew about 35% over the last five years, which is less than half of the raw return. Ditto for Yahoo, which claims 45% growth. Even stranger still, the CNN chart for VFINX (an S&P 500 index fund) clearly shows the correct market growth (without reinvesting dividends from the S&P 500 index), so whatever problem exists is inconsistent:  Yahoo also agrees with itself for VFINX, but comes in a bit low even if your assume no reinvestment of dividends (68% vs. 78% expected); I'm not sure if it's ever right.  By way of comparison, TD's chart for VFINX seems to be consistent with its ABALX chart and with reality:  As a final sanity check, I pulled historical ^GSPC prices from Yahoo Finance. It closed at $1406.58 on 27 Aug 2012 and $2477.55 on 28 Aug 2017, or 76.1% growth overall. That agrees with TD and the return calculator above, and disagrees with CNN Money (on ABALX). Worse, Yahoo's own charts (both ABALX and VFINX) disagree with Yahoo's own historical data. Low volatility trading tends to be a hallmark of the late summer as Wall Street by and large goes on summer vacation. When all those traders and hedge fund managers return to work full-tilt in September,  the market tends to become more volatile - either upwards or downwards. If you are wondering why these months have been particularly poor relative to others, than I don't think anyone knows the reason why. Most likely crazy bad, given all the news rolling out by October, mainly the fed meetings and government debt ceiling. Those big issues will scare the market imo. Nothing bad may actually happen, but the markets do not care what actually happens, but what they THINK is going to happen. I might take up some long TVIX/VXX positions myself. "I think the claim is that you shouldn't buy a house expecting it to increase in value as you would a stock portfolio. OTOH if you are looking at it from the stand point of ""I need housing, mortgage payments and rent are comparable and I build equity if I buy a house rather then rent"" that's potentiality a very different situation (that I'm not qualified to judge)." If your planning on shorting the stocks be careful, while the value of the retail sector may be declining there will be a lot of back and forth over the next ten years, and as REITs discounts to nav increases, there is huge opportunities for buyouts from developers who have other use ideas for the real estate. The real estate will always have value, even if it's not as a shopping center. Moreover the fact that they're simply invested in two of the biggest emerging market ETFs which preform well with global stability but are overall kinda risky long term goes to show that it's not some unheard of success. As you said, the proving ground will be whether they can make money in a down economy, where it's much harder to find profitable investments. Perhaps they'll switch to bonds and commodities.