What is the role of a manager in a passively managed index fund?
"There still is some buying and selling to do in a passively-managed fund.  The stocks might pay dividends.  If the fund manager didn't reinvest these dividends, the fund would begin to accumulate a cash position, which would cause it to stray from being an index fund.  Stocks come and go from an index as well; if the fund is to maintain a composition that matches a particular index, this must be taken into account as well. The role of the manager is to ensure that the fund maintains the composition that it was intended to replicate.  It doesn't involve as much ""stock picking"" that active managers do.  The manager has less leeway as to what s/he buys and sells, but there still is work involved." There is trading, and while it can be automated, someone has to define the rules for the automated system.  Why not call that person the manager?
Mutual funds buy (and sell) shares in companies in accordance with  the policies set forth in their prospectus, not according to the  individual needs of an investor, that is, when you invest money in (or withdraw money from) a mutual fund,  the manager buys or sells whatever shares that, in the manager's judgement,  will be the most appropriate ones (consistent with the investment policies). Thus, a large-cap mutual fund manager will not buy the latest hot small-cap stock that will likely be hugely profitable; he/she must choose only between various large capitalization companies. Some exchange-traded funds are fixed baskets of stocks. Suppose you will not invest in a company X as a matter of principle. Unless a mutual fund prospectus says that it will not invest in X, you may well end up having an investment in X at some time because the fund manager bought shares in X. With such an ETF,  you know what is in the basket, and if the basket does not include stock in X  now, it will not own stock in X at a later date. Some exchange-traded funds are constructed based on some index and track the index as a matter of policy. Thus, you will not be investing in X unless X becomes part of the index because Standard or Poor or Russell or somebody changed their minds, and the ETF buys X in order to track the index. Finally, some ETFs are exactly like general mutual funds except that you can buy or sell ETF shares at any time at the price at the instant that your order is executed whereas with mutual funds, the price of the mutual fund shares that you have bought or sold is the NAV of the mutual fund shares for that day, which is established based on the closing prices at the end of the trading day of the stocks, bonds etc that the fund owns.  So, you might end up owning stock in X at any time based on what the fund manager thinks about X. Placing bets on targeted sectors of the market totally makes sense in my opinion.  Especially if you've done research, with a non-biased eye, that convinces you those sectors will continue to outperform.   However, the funds you've boxed in red all appear to be actively managed funds (I only double-checked on the first.)  There is a bit of research showing that very few active managers consistently beat an index over the long term.  By buying these funds, especially since you hope to hold for decades, you are placing bets that these managers maintain their edge over an equivalent index.  This seems unlikely to be a winning bet the longer you hold the position.   Perhaps there are no sector index funds for the sectors or focuses you have?  But if there were, and it was my money that I planned to park for the long term, I'd pick the index fund over the active managed fund. Index funds also have an advantage in costs or fees.  They can charge substantially less than an actively managed fund does.  And fees can be a big drag on total return. "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." "who computes the S&P 500? Standard and Poor's. Why are they sharing this information and Because that's what they do. This is a financial research company. how do they recuperate the costs inherent in computing the S&P 500? By charging clients for other information. The computing of the index itself is not all that complicated, its coming up with the index that's a problem. Once they've come up with the formula, and it became widely accepted, the computation itself is not an issue. But the fact that its so popular leads to the S&P brand recognition, and people come and pay good money for their other services (ratings and financial analysis of securities). They do more work for free. For example, the ratings of various government debts are being done by S&P for free (governments don't pay for that), while private bonds are rated for a fee (corporations pay to have their bonds rated). Also, as noted by JBKing, there are probably some licensing fees for using the index name in the fund name (and other users are probably paying the licensing fee, like the news agencies and the exchanges). S&P500 is a registered trademark, and as such cannot be used without the owner's permission. Why is then ""active management"" not required for indexed funds Because no research and stock picking is required. In fact, these funds don't really require a manager, they can be managed by a simple script. and how does it lower taxes? (perhaps this could be a different   question if this has become too broad) Actively managed funds perform a lot more buy/sell operations, each leading to tax consequences to the fund (which rolls them over to the investors). Index funds only buy and sell to re-balance back to the index (or when the makeup of the index changes, usually once a year or half a year), leading to much lesser realized capital gains to the fund, thus much lesser tax consequences." Starting with the basics, you have the sell side (investment banks, Goldman Sachs) and the buy side (asset managers, Blackrock). The buy side are the clients of the sell side, directing trade flow through banks and using their research and taking part in origination and new issues. Basically both are currently under structural pressure from passive investing combined with new technology and regulation (MIFID 2 in Europe). Since the vast majority of fund managers/big investors run private entities, it's not possible to track their performance. It's possible to look at what they are holding (that's never real-time information) and emulate their performance. There are many technical answers above , but the short story to me is that very few active fund managers consistently beat the market. Look at the results of actively managed funds. Depending on whose analysis you read, you will find out that somewhere between 80-90% of fund managers in a given year do not beat passive index funds. So go figure how you will do compared to a mutual fund manager who has way more experience than you likely have. So, that in itself is moderately interesting, but if you look at same-manager performance over several consecutive years it is rare to find anyone that goes beats the market for more than a few years in a row. There are exceptions, but go pick one of these guys/gals - good luck. Getting in and out of the market is a loser. This is because there is no way to see market spikes and down turns. There are many behavioral studies that have been done that show people do the wrong thing: they sell after losses have occurred and they buy after the market has gone up. Missing an up spike and not being in before the spike is as devastating as missing a down turn and not getting out in time. There is another down side, if you are trading in a personal account, rather than a tax deferred account, going in and out of stocks has tax complications. In short, a broad based equity index will, over time, beat about anything out there and it will do it in a tax efficient manner.  Exchange traded funds (ETFs) are a wonderful way to obtain diversification immediately at very low cost. "(Leaving aside the question of why should you try and convince him...) I don't know about a very convincing ""tl;dr"" online resource, but two books in particular convinced me that active management is generally foolish, but staying out of the markets is also foolish.  They are: The Intelligent Asset Allocator: How to Build Your Portfolio to Maximize Returns and Minimize Risk by William Bernstein, and A Random Walk Down Wall Street: The Time Tested-Strategy for Successful Investing by Burton G. Malkiel Berstein's book really drives home the fact that adding some amount of a risky asset class to a portfolio can actually reduce overall portfolio risk. Some folks won a Nobel Prize for coming up with this modern portfolio theory stuff. If your friend is truly risk-averse, he can't afford not to diversify.  The single asset class he's focusing on certainly has risks, most likely inflation / purchasing power risk ... and that risk that could be reduced by including some percentage of other assets to compensate, even small amounts. Perhaps the issue is one of psychology? Many people can't stomach the ups-and-downs of the stock market.  Bernstein's also-excellent follow-up book, The Four Pillars of Investing: Lessons for Building a Winning Portfolio, specifically addresses psychology as one of the pillars." "Index funds may invest either in index components directly or in other instruments (like ETFs, index options, futures, etc.) which are highly correlated with the index. The specific fund prospectus or description on any decent financial site should contain these details.  Index funds are not actively managed, but that does not mean they aren't managed at all - if index changes and the fund includes specific stock, they would adjust the fund content. Of course, the downside of it is that selling off large amounts of certain stock (on its low point, since it's being excluded presumably because of its decline) and buying large amount of different stock (on its raising point) may have certain costs, which would cause the fund lag behind the index. Usually the difference is not overly large, but it exists.  Investing in the index contents directly involves more transactions - which the fund distributes between members, so it doesn't usually buy individually for each member but manages the portfolio in big chunks, which saves costs. Of course, the downside is that it can lag behind the index if it's volatile. Also, in order to buy specific shares, you will have to shell out for a number of whole share prices - which for a big index may be a substantial sum and won't allow you much flexibility (like ""I want to withdraw half of my investment in S&P 500"") since you can't usually own 1/10 of a share. With index funds, the entry price is usually quite low and increments in which you can add or withdraw funds are low too." "Most people advocate a passively managed, low fee mutual fund that simply aims to track a given benchmark (say S&P 500). Few funds can beat the S&P consistently, so investors are often better served finding a no load passive fund. First thing I would do is ask your benefits rep why you don't have an option to invest in a Fidelity passive index fund like Spartan 500. Ideally young people would be heavy in equities and slowly divest for less risky stuff as retirement comes closer, and rebalance the portfolio regularly when market swings put you off risk targets. Few people know how to do this and actually do so. So there are mutual funds that do it for you, for a fee. These in are called ""lifecycle"" funds (The Freedom funds here).  I hesitate to recommend them because they're still fairly new. If you take a look at underlying assets, these things generally just reinvest in the broker's other funds, which themselves have expenses & fees. And there's all kinds personal situations that might lead to you place a portion with a different investment." "For US stocks it's a bit of a gamble. Many actively managed funds underperform the market indexes, but some of them outperform in many years. With an index you will get average results. With an active manager you ""might"" do better than average. So you can view active management as a higher risk, potentially higher reward investment approach. On the other hand, if you want to diversify some of your investments into international stocks, bonds, junk bonds, and real estate (REITs) active management is highly likely to be better than indexing. For these specialized areas specialized knowledge and research is needed." What decision are you trying to make?  Are you interested day trading stocks to make it rich? Or are you looking at your investment options and trying to decide between an actively managed mutual fund and an ETF? If the former, then precise statistics are hard to come by, but I believe that 99% of day traders would do better investing in an ETF. If the latter, then there are lots of studies that show that most actively managed funds do worse than index funds, so with most actively managed funds you are paying higher fees for worse performance.  Here is a quote from the Bogleheads Guide to Investing: Index funds outperform approximately 80 percent of all actively   managed funds over long periods of time. They do so for one simple   reason: rock-bottom costs. In a random market, we don't know what   future returns will be. However, we do know that an investor who keeps   his or her costs low will earn a higher return than one who does not.   That's the indexer's edge. Many people believe that your best option for investing is a diverse portfolio of ETFs, like this.  This is what I do. Good question. There are plenty of investors who think they can simply rely on intuition, and although luck is always present it is not enough to construct a proper portfolio. First of all there are two basic types of portfolio management: Passive and Active. The majority of abnormal gains are made with active portfolio management although passive managers are less likely to suffer loses.  Both types must be created with some kind of qualitative and quantitative research, but an active portfolio requires constant adjustments (Market Timing) to preserve the desired levels of risk and return.  The topic is extremely broad and every manager has his own preferred methods of quantitative analysis. I will try to list here some most common, in my opinion, ways of stock-picking and portfolio management. Roy's Criterion: The best portfolio is that with the lowest probability that the return will be below a specified level.  This is achieved by maximising the number of standard deviations between the return on the portfolio and minimum specified level: Max k = (Rp-Rl)/Sp Where (Rp) - return on portfolio, (Rl) - specified minimum return, (Sp) - standard deviation of portfolio return. Kataoka's Criterion: Maximise the minimum return (Rl) subject to constraint that the chance of a return below (Rl) is less than or equal to a specified value (a). Maximise (Rl) Subject to Prob (Rp < Rl) =< a For example, assume that the specified value is 20% - this will be met provided (Rl) is at least 0.84 standard deviations below (Rp). Therefore the best portfolio is the one that maximises (Rl) where: Rl = Rp-0.84*Sp Telser's Criterion: Maximise expected return subject to the constraint that the chance of a return below the specified minimum is less than or equal to some specified minimum (a) Maximise (Rp) subject to Prob (Rp < Rl) =< a Assuming same data as previously:  Rl =< Rp-0.84*Sp and select the portfolio with highest expected return. Security Selection Now let's look at some methods of security selection. This is important when a manager believes some shares are mispriced. The required return on security 'i' is given by: Ri = Rf+(Rm-Rf)Bi Where (Rf) - is a risk-free rate, (Rm) - return on the market, (Bi) - security's beta. The difference between the required return and the actual return expected is known as the security's alpha (Ai). Ai = Rai - Ri, where (Rai) is actual return on security 'i'. Stock Picking One way of stock-picking is to select portfolios of securities with positive alphas. Alpha of a portfolio is simply the weighted average of the alphas of the securities in the portfolio. Ap = {(n*Ai) Where ({) is sigma (sorry for such weird typing, haven't figured out yet how to type proper-looking formulas), (n) - share of 'i'th security in portfolio. So another way of stock-picking is ranking securities by their excess return to beta (ERB): ERB = (Ri - Rf)/Bi The greater the ERB the more desirable the security and the greater the proportion it will make up of the portfolio. Thus portfolios produced by this technique will have greater proportion of some securities than the market portfolio and lower proportions of other securities.  The number of securities depends on a cut-off rate (C*) for the ERB, defined so that all securities with ERB>C* are included in portfolio while if ERB  The cut-off rate for a portfolio containing the first 'j' securities is given by (i'm inserting an image cut from Word below):  Here comes the tricky part: Basically what you do is first calculate ERB for each security, then calculate Cj for each security mix (gradually adding new securities one by one and recalculating Cj each time). Then you select an optimum portfolio by comparing Cj of each mix to ERB's of it's securities. Let me show you a simple example: Say you have securities A,B,C and D you calculated ERB's: ERB(a)=6, ERB(b)=6.5, ERB(c)=5, ERB(d)=4 also you calculated: C(a)=4.1, C(ab)=4.8, C(abc)=4.9, C(abcd)=4.5. Then you check: ERB(a),ERB(b),ERB(c) are greater than C(a), but C(a) only contains security A so C(a) is not an optimum mix. ERB(a),ERB(b),ERB(c) are greater than C(ab), but C(ab) only contains securities A and B ERB(a),ERB(b),ERB(c) are greater than C(abc), and C(abc) contains A B and C so it is an optimum. ERB(d) is lower than C(abcd) so C(abcd) is not an optimum portfolio. Finally the most important part: Below is a formula to find the share of each security in the portfolio:  Here you simply plug in already obtained values for each security to find it's proportion in your portfolio. I hope this somehow answers your question, however there is a lot more than this to consider if you decide to manage your portfolio yourself. Some of the most important areas are:  Market Timing Hedging Stocks vs Bonds  Good luck with your investments! And remember, the safest portfolio is the one that replicates the Global Market.  The cut-off rate for a portfolio containing the first 'j' securities is given by (i'm inserting an image cut from Word below):  Here comes the tricky part: Basically what you do is first calculate ERB for each security, then calculate Cj for each security mix (gradually adding new securities one by one and recalculating Cj each time). Then you select an optimum portfolio by comparing Cj of each mix to ERB's of it's securities. Let me show you a simple example: Say you have securities A,B,C and D you calculated ERB's: ERB(a)=6, ERB(b)=6.5, ERB(c)=5, ERB(d)=4 also you calculated: C(a)=4.1, C(ab)=4.8, C(abc)=4.9, C(abcd)=4.5. Then you check: ERB(a),ERB(b),ERB(c) are greater than C(a), but C(a) only contains security A so C(a) is not an optimum mix. ERB(a),ERB(b),ERB(c) are greater than C(ab), but C(ab) only contains securities A and B ERB(a),ERB(b),ERB(c) are greater than C(abc), and C(abc) contains A B and C so it is an optimum. ERB(d) is lower than C(abcd) so C(abcd) is not an optimum portfolio. Finally the most important part: Below is a formula to find the share of each security in the portfolio:  Here you simply plug in already obtained values for each security to find it's proportion in your portfolio. I hope this somehow answers your question, however there is a lot more than this to consider if you decide to manage your portfolio yourself. Some of the most important areas are: Good luck with your investments! And remember, the safest portfolio is the one that replicates the Global Market. Quick and dirty paper but pretty interesting.. I'm not in Portfolio Management but I probably would have ended up at the modal number as well.   I don't know the subject deeply enough to answer my own question, but is the bias always toward underestimation of variance? Or is that a complex of the way the problem was set up?   Another question I have for those in investment management; Would this impact asset allocation? "I recommend you take a look at this lecture (really, the whole series is enlightening), from Swenson. He identifies 3 sources of returns: diversification, timing and selection. He appears to discard timing and selection as impossible. A student kinda calls him out on this. Diversification reduces risk, not increase returns. It turns out they did time the market, by shorting .com's before the bubble, and real estate just before the downturn. In 1990, Yale started a ""Absolute Return"" unit and allocated like 15 percent to it, mostly by selling US equities, that specializes in these sorts of hedging moves. As for why you might employ managers for specific areas, consider that the expense ratio Wall Street charges you or me still represent a very nice salary when applied to the billions in Yale's portfolio. So they hire internally to reduce expenses, and I'm sure they're kept busy. They also need people to sell off assets to maintain ratios, and figuring out which ones to sell might take specialized knowledge. Finally, in some areas, you functionally cannot invest without management. For example, Yale has a substantial allocation in private equity, and by definition that doesn't trade on the open market. The other thing you should consider is that for all its diversification, Yale lost 25 percent of their portfolio in 2009. For a technique that's supposed to reduce volatility, they seem to have a large range of returns over the past five years."