Tax Efficiency with Index Investing
Your tax efficient reasoning is solid for where you want to distribute your assets. ETFs are often more tax efficient than their equivalent mutual funds but the exact differences would depend on the comparison between the fund and ETF you were considering. The one exception to this rule is Vanguard funds and ETFs which have the exact same tax-efficiency because ETFs are a share class of the corresponding mutual fund.
Index funds, like IBB, generally lack active management, which equates to lower expenses. This is simply because the target index, the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index in the case of IBB, is composed of known quantities. This means there won't be stock pickers or analysts constantly swapping holdings, increasing the turnover rate of the portfolio and increasing capital gains; costs that are offset by higher expense ratios in more actively managed funds. Not a bad strategy. However: If you REALLY want tax efficiency you can buy stocks that don't pay a dividend, usually growth stocks like FB, GOOGL, and others. This way you will never have to pay any dividend tax - all your tax will be paid when you retire at a theoretically lower tax rate (<--- really a grey tax area here).  *Also, check out Robin Hood. They offer commission free stock trading. "No, not really. This depends on the situation and the taxing jurisdiction. Different countries have different laws, and some countries have different laws for different situations. For example, in the US, some investments will be taxed as you described, others will be taxed as ""mark to market"", i.e.: based on the FMV difference between the end of the year and the beginning of the year, and without you actually making any transactions. Depends on the situation." Certainly, paying off the mortgage is better than doing nothing with the money. But it gets interesting when you consider keeping the mortgage and investing the money. If the mortgage rate is 5% and you expect >5% returns from stocks or some other investment, then it might make sense to seek those higher returns. If you expect the same 5% return from stocks, keeping the mortgage and investing the money can still be more tax-efficient. Assuming a marginal tax rate of 30%, the real cost of mortgage interest (in terms of post-tax money) is 3.5%*. If your investment results in long-term capital gains taxed at 15%, the real rate of growth of your post-tax money would be 4.25%. So in post-tax terms, your rate of gain is greater than your rate of loss. On the other hand, paying off the mortgage is safer than investing borrowed money, so doing so might be more appropriate for the risk-averse. * I'm oversimplifying a bit by assuming the deduction doesn't change your marginal tax rate. Equal-weight ETFs remove the large cap bias found in most popular indexes. What results behaves very much like a small-cap or mid-cap index. Observe RSP vs IJR over a 5 year period: IJR (iShares S&P SmallCap 600 ETF) vs RSP (Rydex S&P Equal Weight ETF)  I'm not sure if equal-weighting is worth the reduced efficiency. Mid-cap and small-cap funds have lower expenses (%0.20 for IJR vs %0.40 for RSP) and appear to do better over the long run. We don't know if that pattern will continue, but expense is one of the strongest long-term predictors of performance. "Your real question, ""why is this not discussed more?"" is intriguing. I think the media are doing a better job bringing these things into the topics they like to ponder, just not enough, yet.  You actually produced the answer to How are long-term capital gains taxed if the gain pushes income into a new tax bracket? so you understand how it works.  I am a fan of bracket topping. e.g. A young couple should try to top off their 15% bracket by staying with Roth but then using pretax IRA/401(k) to not creep into 25% bracket.  For this discussion, 2013 numbers, a blank return (i.e. no schedule A, no other income) shows a couple with a gross $92,500 being at the 15%/25% line. It happens that $20K is exactly the sum of their standard deduction, and 2 exemptions.  The last clean Distribution of Income Data is from 2006, but since wages haven't exploded and inflation has been low, it's fair to say that from the $92,000 representing the top 20% of earners, it won't have many more than top 25% today. So, yes, this is a great opportunity for most people.  Any married couple with under that $92,500 figure can use this strategy to exploit your observation, and step up their basis each year. To littleadv objection - I imagine an older couple grossing $75K, by selling stock with $10K in LT gains just getting rid of the potential 15% bill at retirement. No trading cost if a mutual fund, just $20 or so if stocks.  The more important point, not yet mentioned - even in a low cost 401(k), a lifetime of savings results in all gains being turned in ordinary income. And the case is strong for 'deposit to the match but no no more' as this strategy would let 2/3 of us pay zero on those gains.  (To try to address the rest of your questions a bit - the strategy applies to a small sliver of people. 25% have income too high, the bottom 50% or so, have virtually no savings. Much of the 25% that remain have savings in tax sheltered accounts. With the 2013 401(k) limit of $17,500, a 40 year old couple can save $35,000. This easily suck in most of one's long term retirement savings. We can discuss demographics all day, but I think this addresses your question.) If you add any comments, I'll probably address them via edits, avoiding a long dialog below." There are multiple ETFs which inversely track the common indices, though many of these are leveraged.  For example, SDS tracks approximately -200% of the S&P 500.  (Note: due to how these are structured, they are only suitable for very short term investments) You can also consider using Put options for the various indices as well.  For example, you could buy a Put for the SPY out a year or so to give you some fairly cheap insurance (assuming it's a small part of your portfolio). One other option is to invest against the market volatility.  As the market makes sudden swings, the volatility goes up; this tends to be true more when it falls than when it rises.  One way of invesing in market volatility is to trade options against the VIX. You cannot do a 1031 exchange with stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or ETFs.  There really isn't much difference between an ETF and its equivalent index mutual fund. Both will have minimal capital gains distributions. I would not recommend selling an index mutual fund and taking a short-term capital gain just to buy the equivalent ETF. "You are thinking about it this way: ""The longer I wait to exericse, the more knowledge and information I'll have, thus the more confidence I can have that I'll be able to sell at a profit, minimizing risk. If I exercise early and still have to wait, there may never be a chance I can sell at a profit, and I'll have lost the money I paid to exercise and any tax I had to pay when I exercised."" All of that is true. But if you exercise early: The fair market value of the stock will probably be lower, so you may pay less income tax when you exercise. (This depends on your tax situation. Currently, ISO exercises affect your AMT.) If the company goes through a phase where the value is unusually high, you'll be able to sell and still get the tax benefits because you exercised earlier. You avoid the nightmare scenario where you leave the company (voluntarily or not) and can't afford to exercise your options because of the tax implications. In many realistic cases, exercising earlier means less risk. Imagine if you're working at a company that is privately held and you expect to be there for another year or so. You are very optimistic about the company, but not sure when it will IPO or get acquired and that may be several years off. The fair market value of the stock is low now, but may be much higher in a year. In this case, it makes a lot of sense to exercise now. The cost is low because the fair market value is low so it won't result in a huge tax bill. And then when you leave in a year, you won't have to choose between forfeiting your options or borrowing money to pay the much higher taxes due to exercise them then." Some index funds offer lower expense ratios to those who invest large amounts of money. For example, Vanguard offers Admiral Shares of many of its mutual funds (including several index funds) to individuals who invest more than $50K or $100K, and these Shares have lower expense ratios than the Investor shares in the fund. There are Institutional Shares designed for investments by pension plans, 401k plans of large companies etc which have even lower expenses than Admiral Shares. Individuals working for large companies sometimes get access to Institutional Shares through their 401k plans.  Thus, there is something to gained by investing in just one index fund (for a particular index) that offers lower expense ratios for large investments instead of diversifying into several index funds all tracking the same index. Of course, this advantage might be offset by failure to track the index closely, but this tracking should be monitored not on a daily basis but over much longer periods of time to test whether your favorite fund is perennially trailing the index by far more than its competitors with larger expense ratios. Remember that the Net Asset Value (NAV) published by each mutual fund after the markets close already take into account the expense ratio. I think you can do better than the straight indexes. For instance Vanguard's High Yield Tax Exempt Fund has made 4.19% over the past 5 years. The S&P 500 Index has lost -2.25% in the same period. I think good mutual funds will continue to outperform the markets because you have skilled managers taking care of your money.  The index is just a bet on the whole market.  That said, whatever you do, you should diversify. List of Vanguard Funds "I think anyone will agree that the ""optimal"" rate of taxation is the goal but what is optimal? It depends on your scoring metrics, the optimal solution to one problem might not be the optimal solution for another.   You bring up the Feds but that confounds the issue because now we have to talk about monetary policy, taxation is fiscal policy   In general lowering taxes increases capital investment regardless of the investment rate, the firm has more money they are going to spend it somewhere" Over the past five years, QFVOX has returned 13.67%, compared to the index fund SPY that has returned 50.39%. SEVAX has lost 23.96%. AKREX has returned 81.82%. In two of your three examples, you would have done much better in an index fund with a very low expense ratio as suggested. While one can never, as you see, make a generalization, in almost every case, most investors will do better, and often much better, with an index fund with a low expense ratio. My source was Google Finance. "private investors that don't have the time or expertise for active investment.  This may be known as every private investor. An index fund ensures average returns. The bulk of active trading is done by private institutions with bucketloads of experts studying the markets and AI scraping every bit of data it can get (from the news, stock market, the weather reports, etc...). Because of that, to get above average returns an average percent of the time, singular private investors have to drastically beat the average large team of individuals/software. Now that index ETF are becoming so fashionable, could there be a tipping point at which the market signals that active investors send become so diluted that this ""index ETF parasitism"" collapses? How would this look like and would it affect only those who invest in index ETF or would it affect the stock market more generally? To make this question perhaps more on-topic: Is the fact (or presumption) that index ETF rely indirectly on active investment decisions by other market participants, as explained above, a known source of concern for personal investment? This is a well-covered topic. Some people think this will be an issue.   Others point out that it is a hard issue to bootstrap. I gravitate to this view. A small active market can support a large number of passive investors. If the number of active investors ever got too low, the gains & likelihood of gains that could be made from being an active investor would rise and generate more active investors. Private investing makes sense in a few cases. One example is ethics. Some people may not want to be invested, even indirectly, in certain companies." "This isn't so much a legal issue, the prohibition on giving discounts was written into the merchant agreements that most of the major credit card companies enforced on businesses that accepted their credit cards. That is, until the recent Financial Reform Bill (2010) passed Congress. It changes everything. (The logic on this is a little convoluted, so read carefully) Credit card companies can no longer prohibit merchants from requiring a minimum purchase amount to use a credit card. Meaning: That if merchants want to, they can now stop taking credit cards for a $4 latte. Credit card companies can no longer prohibit merchants from giving discounts for cash. Here is an article with a lot more detail: Financial Reform Bill Good News for Credit Card Holders Here is a link to the actual bill details and content: HR 4173 - Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act Here is the relevant part: This subsection is supposed to take affect ""at the end of the 12-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010."" In other words, July 21st, 2011."