Is an open-sourced World Stock Index a pipe-dream?
"An index is just a mathematical calculation based on stock prices. Anyone can create such a calculation and (given a little effort) publish it based on publicly available data. The question of ""open source"" is simply whether or not the calculator chooses to publish the calculation used. Given how easy an index is to create, the issue is not the ""open source"" nature or otherwise, but its credibility and usefulness." "I think that any ETF is ""open source"" -- the company issues a prospectus and publishes the basket of stocks that make up the index. The stuff that is proprietary are trading strategies and securities or deriviatives that aren't traded on the open market. Swaps, venture funds, hedge funds and other, more ""exotic"" derivatives are the things that are closed. What do you mean by ""open source"" in this context?"
Stock portfolios have diversifiable risk and undiversifiable risk.  The market rewards investors for taking undiversifiable risk (e.g. owning an index of oil producing companies) and does not reward investors for assuming diversifiable risk (e.g. owning a single oil producing company).  The market will not provide investors with any extra return for owning a single oil company when they can buy an oil index fund at no additional cost. Similarly, the market will not reward you for owning a small-cap index fund when you can purchase a globally diversified / capitalization diversified index fund at no additional cost.  This article provides a more detailed description. The Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund is a much better staring point for an equity portfolio. You will need to make sure that the asset allocation of your overall portfolio (e.g. stocks, bonds, P2P lending, cash) is consistent with your time horizon (5-10 years). "IT appears the company you're talking about did not report as you expected them to, which is not unusual for OTC companies because, as Milo stated, they are not well-managed. That being said, reports on EDGAR are available as soon as they're posted.  I'm not aware of any lag between when the company uploads their report and it is available on the EDGAR site. Looking at the profile of the company you're referring to, I'm curious why you'd be so interested in a company with huge negative earnings, a near-zero share price, and an obviously spotty history of reporting its numbers.  In order to make any money with this stock, you'd have to buy a huge number of shares, which could be difficult to unload.  Further, the fees you're going to pay to make your trades are very likely to outstrip your return, so you'd be upside down on it. This company has pretty negative financials, and in a world of cheap oil, alternative energy (and the companies that deal in it) are out of vogue, so they're not likely to see a turnaround anytime soon.  They're spending money on R & D at a rate almost 17 times earnings, and the losses are deepening, while revenues are not improving all that much.  These guys are bleeding to death, and there's little prospect of a financial transfusion on the horizon. This is, as they say, a ""dog with fleas"", so your best bet is to find something else to put your money into. I hope this helps. Good luck!" "Sure, it doesn't, but realistically they can't/shouldn't do anything about it in their index funds, because then they're just another stock picker, trying to gauge which companies are going to do best.  Their funds not all being indexes is what I was getting at with my original question. How much leeway do they have in their definitions of other funds? IE, if they had a dividend fund that included all large cap dividend paying stocks above 3% yield, they couldn't take out Shell just because of climate risk without fundamentally changing what the fund is. But if it's just ""income fund"" then they can do whatever in that space." A target date fund is NOT a world market index. There is no requirement that it be weighted based on the weights of the various world stock markets. If anything, historically (since the invention of target date funds), a 2:1 ratio is actually pretty low. 6:1 is, or was, probably more common. Just a token amount to non-US investments. Pretty big difference between the “over valued” stock of the dot com crash (more akin to ICO’s in that they’d have an idea and IPO for $60mm withoutany real viable business or assets) and the “over valued” stock Einhorn is rambling against today (short Amazon, which clearly has a functioning business with tangible assets) Excellent Question!  I agree with other repliers but there are some uneasy things with index funds. Since your view is death, I will take extremely pessimist view things that may cause it (very big may): I know warnings about stock-picking but, in imperfect world, the above things tend to happen. But to be honest, they feel too much paranoia. Better to keep things simple with good diversification and rebalancing when people live in euphoria/death. You may like Bogleheads.org. "The last 300 years of civilization have been amazingly atypical. We have experienced industrial revolution after industrial revolution.  Economic revolutions that would have changed the world in 1000 AD show up as noise.  Coal, Canal, Rail, Trade, Electricity, Refrigeration, Oil, Gas, Nuclear, Assembly Line, Vacuum Tube, Mass Education, Transistor, Integrated Circuit, Nano-tech, Antibiotics, Slaying of absolute Poverty, Democratic, Feminism, Superhighway, Automobile, Airplane, and on and on and on. A cascade of miracles and world-shaking events that have intertwined and together generated a many century long economic singularity that has upended the entire world and generated today's world. The question you should ask, is tomorrow going to be like today?  And the answer is yes; in weather, and in economics, the most likely bet bet is always ""things keep on going like they have in the short term"".  But next week?  Next month?  That is often not much like today. There is reason to believe that the yield on the above revolutions will continue to propel the economy forward, and that there are multiple promising new revolutions on the horizon. But barring that kind of world-shaking revolution, you are not going to maintain a 5% real return on investment over another centuries for the stock market.  The value of investments has to go up by a factor of over 100 in order for that to happen, and the US stock market is already close to 20 trillion dollars. For it to have a market cap of 2 quadrillion dollars the world economy will have to be much larger than it is today.  And to be that much larger, the world would have to be a much stranger place that values very different things. We are currently roughly a K-type 0.72 civilization.  A simple linear expansion of our power of 100x brings us up to K-type 0.92, which is going to cook the planet from waste heat (not from CO2, but just from the waste heat of the energy it uses!) Efficiency can mitigate this, but only to a degree.  100x more efficient technology is going to less believable than a beanstalk and space colonies. If you believe that the stock market is going to continue to grow at 5%/year for the next century, start investing in really out-there technologies.  Gene editing, virtual and augmented reality, space beanstalks and private lift, miraculously cheap energy storage, etc.  Because simply refining the technology of today won't get us there. Modern industrial civilization has been a miracle factory.  That is what pulled off that growth rate.  If the miracles stop coming, so does the growth. There is a road to it.  It would involve clean energy, mass personal automation and friendly (not smarter than human) AI, and the entire world lifted up to the standard of living of the top 3% of the USA on average.  But it is far from guaranteed." More questions!  1.) I thought the criticism of the Dow was that it's much smaller than other indexes and thus less representative of the market as a whole?  2,) When you say private investors are you talking about a few specific people? Or anyone who invests at all?  Thanks "Its bandwidth, so no, it wouldn't clog up the ""tubes"" like a highway. Everyone who quotes has a fixed amount of bandwidth and an exchange can cut off a firm's connection. The exchanges know who is quoting- you have to buy connections to them to do this stuff. Every exchange I have seen has reporting capability to see who is quoting what, and who is trading what.   Whoever is doing this isn't making any money, because they didn't trade anything! Servers and connectivity are expensive, so they are actually losing money. This situation is almost certainly due to either a new algo ""soft launching"" or being tweaked and having its parameters set too conservatively." Investing in commodities is iffy in the best of times. Potash already has expectations priced in, so I prefer to play CNI, the railroad doing most of the hauling.  Uranium? No. Uranium has been touted for a decade or more without results. Thorium is the preferable future nuclear fuel, and there is lots of it. Basically you'd take all the companies in a given universe (like the S&amp;P 500 or the Russell 3000) and instead of weighting them by market cap as they are currently done, you would weight by an alternative measure.  Right now, if you're invested in an index that is market cap weighted, you're effectively momentum chasing. If a stock runs up, you're going to have a higher weight in your portfolio because of it (but only after the increase).  An alternative that OppenheimerFunds has come up with is using revenue-weighting. That way you're using company fundamentals and only when the fundamentals are improving do you increase the weight in your portfolio.  I haven't yet seen any research that explores weighting by other fundamentals. I would think that revenues aren't perfect either and that you might want to weight by Net Income. Or to go several steps further, by year over year Free Cash Flow growth.   It could be a seminal paper if you are the one who empirically identifies a better weighting methodology and then have everyone else fight over the theoretical underpinnings.  This is effectively what goes into Smart Beta investing: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/smart-beta.asp "&gt;would this even be possible?  Anything is possible, but it would be extremely difficult because of the second question you posed. From my experience, crowd sourcing pools small amounts of money compared to institutional (aka accredited) investors.   Not only that, but to lead change, you need people representing the group with deep financial sector experience. A hedge fund that becomes an activist investor (i.e. Third Point) has a decisive plan in place and knows what needs to be accomplished. It will also recommend candidates to replace existing directors that sit on the board.   Most ""main street"" investors don't have what it takes to lead change in any business, let alone financial institutions, which are as complex as a corporation comes. That being said, why would there be a limitation to banks?" "No. I glanced through the article you linked to.  It's quite lengthy, but not compelling. I'd not lose any sleep over this.  Others with far better credentials are making the opposite claim, that life is good and the Dow on its way to 20,000.   Back to this guy - StansberryResearch.com Reviews – Legit or Scam? offers a look at this company. Stansberry calls his company ""one of the largest and most recognized investment research companies in the world"" but references to his firm call it a clearinghouse for other authors newsletters.  Why would you give any more credence to his ranting than any other extreme prognostications?  I suppose if I told you I never heard of him it would be pretty meaningless. I certainly haven't heard of every financial writer. But if he's one of the most recognized, you'd think I might have. Note, I've edited since seeing I was downvoted. But to the question author, you might want to summarize your questions in the future instead of linking to a video or  13,000 word rant. (when you click to shut the video, the text is available.)" The official source for the Dow Jones P/E is Dow Jones.  Unfortunately, the P/E is behind a pay-wall and not included in the free registration. The easiest (but only approximate) solution is to track against an equivalent ETF.  Here's  a list of popular indexes with an equivalent ETF. Source "Yes, Interactive Brokers is a good source for live data feeds and they have an API which is used to programmatically access the feeds, you will have to pay for data feeds from the individual data sources though.  The stock exchanges have a very high price for their data and this has stifled innovation in the financial sector for several decades in the united states. But at the same time, it has inflated the value and mystique of ""quants"" doing simple algorithms ""that execute within milliseconds"" for banks and funds.  Also RIZM has live feeds, it is a younger service than other exchanges but helps people tap into any online broker's feeds and let you trade your custom algorithms that way, that is their goal."