What's the point of a benchmark?
Markets tend to go up over time, so most things you could buy would make money. A benchmark is meant to represent the market as a whole (or a subset that is relevant to what you are trading), so you can tell if your specific choices helped or hurt your return. As an example, say you pick two financial stocks, Citi and Goldman.  They get you a return of 10% for the year, so you think you made good choices.  But if the financial sector as a whole had a return of 20%, your choices weren't actually that great. Yes an index is by definition any arbitrary selection. In general, to measure performance there are 2 ways: By absolute return - meaning you want a positive return at all times ie. 10% is good. -1% is bad. By relative return - this means beating the benchmark. For example, if the benchmark returns -20% and your portfolio returns -10%, then it has delivered +10% relative returns as compared to the benchmark. Some years your portfolio may perform better than the benchmark, and some years it may be the other way around.  Without a benchmark you will never know. And by the way if you choose poorly, you will never beat the benchmark. If the benchmark goes up 20% but your fund/investment only went up 3% you did make money, but you might want to reevaluate your strategy. One reason it matters whether or not you're beating the S&P 500 (or the Wilshire 5000, or whatever benchmark you choose to use) is to determine whether or not you'd be better off investing in an index fund (or some other investment vehicle) instead of pursuing whatever your current investment strategy happens to be.  Even if your investment strategy makes money, earning what the S&P 500 has averaged over multiple decades (around 10%) with an index fund means a lot more money than a 5% return with an actively managed portfolio (especially when you consider factors like compound interest and inflation). I use the S&P 500 as one of my criteria for judging how well (or poorly) my financial adviser is doing for me. If his recommendations (or trading activity on my behalf, if authorized) are inferior to the S&P 500, for too long, then I have a basis to discontinue the relationship. Check out this Wikipedia entry on stock market indices. There are legitimate criticisms, but on the whole I think they are useful. As an aside, the reason I point to index funds specifically is that they are the one of the lowest-cost, fire-and-forget investment strategies around.  If you compare the return of the S&P 500 index over multiple decades with most actively managed mutual funds, the S&P 500 index comes out ahead.
The S&P 500 is a market index.  The P/E data you're finding for the S&P 500 is data based on the constituent list of that market index and isn't necessarily the P/E ratio of a given fund, even one that aims to track the performance of the S&P 500.    I'm sure similar metrics exist for other market indexes, but unless Vanguard is publishing it's specific holdings in it's target date funds there's no market index to look at. "The answer depends on what is your portfolio's objective.   If you are operating a multi-asset class portfolio (i.e. your portfolio has both bonds and stocks) and are targeting absolute returns, then yes, comparing a stock's beta (or correlation) to a bond benchmark makes sense. What you do with this stock's ""bond beta"" information further depends on what kind of return profile you want your multi-asset class portfolio to have. If you want stocks that appreciate in price when bond prices decline, then of course you want to buy ""negative bond beta"" stocks.  If you are operating a purely relative equity portfolio (i.e. you are benchmarked to the stock market), then comparing the ""bond beta"" is of little use to you.  Hope this helps." whether the consecutive wins have any statistical significance could yield a whole reddit thread imho (same with MaxDD). if you bootstrap your OS results, or just randomize them, the observed out of sample MaxDD or the Max consecutive wins could be very different from what you experience in real life...maybe we should work on some particular algo examples... test them out here, compare and criticize.  scoring/utility functions are an interesting thread as well. No, this is quite wrong. Almost all hedge funds (and all hedge fund investors) use Sharpe as a *primary* measure of performance. The fact that they don't consider themselves risk-free has no bearing on the issue (that's a bizarre line of reasoning - you're saying Sharpe is only relevant for assets that consider themselves risk-free?). And as AlphaPortfolio rightly points out, most funds have no explicit benchmark and they are usually paid for performance over zero.  I've never seen a hedge fund use a benchmark relative information ratio - for starters, what benchmark would you measure a CB arb fund against? Or market neutral quant? Or global macro? Same for CTAs... "This is (almost) a question in financial engineering. First I will note that a discussion of ""the greeks"" is well presented at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks_(finance) These measures are first, second and higher order derivatives (or rate of change comparisons) for information that is generally instantaneous. (Bear with me.) For example the most popular, Delta, compares prices of an option or other derived asset to the underlying asset price. The reason we are able to do all this cool analysis is because the the value of the underlying and derived assets have a direct, instantaneous relationship on each other. Because beta is calculated over a large period of time, and because each time slice covered contributes equally to the aggregate, then the ""difference in Beta"" would really just be showing two pieces of information: Summarizing those two pieces of information into ""delta beta"" would not be useful to me. For further discussion, please see http://www.gummy-stuff.org/beta.htm specifically look at the huge difference in calculation of GE's beta using end-of-month returns versus calculation using day-before-end-of-month returns." "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." It might mean Equal Weighted based on Market cap, rather than Price?  For instance, All of MSCIs indexes are based on security's market cap, but then a factor is applied to give them equal weights once a quarter.  From then on, weights will fluctuate based on market cap performance.    Edit.  Not sure why down voted, but you can check here http://www.msci.com/eqb/methodology/meth_docs/MSCI_Equal_Weighted_Indices_Methodology_May11.pdf  So each quarter weights are set to be equal, but then between quarters the weights fluctuate due to performance Is there some evidence in the article or elsewhere that the purpose is to kill off these competitors rather than simply to compete?  Competition is normally considered good in these kinds of situations, as it cranks out better efficiencies (for which an argument can be made here), but taking actions specifically for the purpose of killing off competition is not good because it reduces the pressures on efficiencies.  Killing off competition by artificially lowering prices below real market value is considered dumping, but I don't really see evidence of that in the article. Is there some hidden somewhere or is the article just trying to make a point without any basis?  I do have concerns about the Amazon play, but sensationalist or bias-driven reporting won't help me puzzle through them. He said he's using MSCI World as a benchmark. MSCI World is not an exchange. The point is the same security listed in different places has different prices, so how do you describe the equity beta of the company to MSCI World if you have multiple and different return streams? This is a real problem to consider and you just dismiss it entirely. "&gt;Performance measurement in something like a manufacturing job, or cashier, or fry cook is fairly easy to measure.  You rather obviously just don't have much experience with the actual working world of ""jobs"" outside of academia.  IOW, your ignorant arrogance is showing. Dial it back." Generally S&P 500 will be used as the benchmark for US investors because it represents how's the US market performs as a whole. If you've outperformed the S&P 500 during the last couple years, great. However, at the end of day, you would want to look at the total growth percent that your portfolio has achieved, as compared with that of S&P 500.  Anyway, your portfolio might actually ride along with the bull market during the 2009-2010 period (more-so for the small caps). I think the straight productivity curve is supposed to represent the idea that the economy is always growing as opposed to shrinking overall, like you said. I beleive the video leaves out the idea of innovation to keep it simpler and cut down on length(Of an already half hour video). Thanks for the connection between innovation and productivity. Im new to this stuff and it hadn't occured to me. "From Investopedia:  ""Beating the market"" is a difficult phrase to analyze. It can be used   to refer to two different situations: 1) An investor, portfolio manager, fund or other investment specialist   produces a better return than the market average. The market average   can be calculated in many ways, but usually a benchmark - such as the   S&P 500 or the Dow Jones Industrial Average index - is a good   representation of the market average. If your returns exceed the   percentage return of the chosen benchmark, you have beaten the market   - congrats! (To learn more, read Benchmark Your Returns With Indexes.) 2) A company's earnings, sales or some other valuation metric is   superior to that of other companies in its industry. Matching the market, I would presume will be generating returns equivalent to the index you are comparing your portfolio with. If for a sector/industry then it would be the returns generated by the sector/industry. As an index is more or less a juxtaposition of the market as a whole, people tend to use an index." "So it seems like a lot of people here aren't exactly sure about why this works and its financial implications.   So what you are referring to is in Finance something called Funds Transfer Pricing or FTP (often referred to as just Transfer Pricing). Like anything else, FTP has its place. Most companies; however, don't use it properly. FTP, theoretically, has one primary purpose (although it's developed a second): to properly allocate opportunity costs across divisions.  Let's say Company A produces widgets. They sell these widgets for $200 at a TOTAL COST of $150 and book profits of $50. Now to produce the widget Division 1 makes a computer chip at a cost of $50 that it then ""sells"" to Division 2 for $60. Division 1 then books a profit of $10. Division 2 then makes some plastic stuff and assembles the device. This is labor intensive so Division 2's costs are $100. Company A sells the completed device for $150. Division 2 subsequently books profits of $40, and appears much more profitable than Division 1, on the surface.  The problem arises when Division 1 could sell the chip to the open market for $125. Now it costs them $50 to produce, and they could make a theoretical profit of $75. This is MORE than the company makes AS A WHOLE on the entire device. By having Division 2 pay effectively ""fair market price"" for that chip, you realize that Division 2 is really operating at a loss (the *opportunity cost* of not selling the chip to market is greater than producing the completed device). Company A would be better off getting rid of Division 2 and solely focusing on Division 1. In a good FTP system, Division 2 would pay the fair market price of $125. If done properly, management would  hopefully realize it should divest Division 2.  That's the ***fundamental premise*** behind FTP. In actuality things get much more complicated because of economics, the company itself, branding, IT, operations, management, PPE, labor laws, etc. Thats why most companies screw it up. All that other stuff falls under whats called cost allocation accounting. It gets VERY complex and entire masters courses are dedicated to it (different methods, etc.)   The other thing you can do with FTP is get crazy tax breaks due to various tax laws. The simplified explanation is that divisions pay taxes on profits to the government ***that division*** is located in (this works on the state level, too btw.). GE does a lot of this and it's a big part of why they pay almost no-taxes. Again, it gets more complicated when you involve audits as there's some grey area legally.   For simplicity, assume tax rates are 40% in the US and 10% in India. So let's say GE makes an airplane engine in the US but ""finishes"" manufacturing in India. These specific engines costs $5,000,000 for the US division to make, up to a certain point.  The US division can then sell the engine at a break even to India. So India ""pays"" $5,000,000 for the engine. The US division then books no profit. India finishes the manufacturing with additional costs of $1,000,000. The India division then sells the engine to the open market for $9,000,000 . Therefore, the India division books a profit of $3,000,000 and pays taxes of $300,000. Now GE as a whole makes a profit of $3,000,000 less taxes of $300,000 = net profit of $2,700,00.  Further, let's say the fair market value of the engine, as is, when the US sells to India is $7,000,000. That would mean US ***should*** book profits of $2,000,000 and India ***should*** book profits of $1,000,000. Total taxes by GE are now $800,000 (US) + $100,000 (India) = $900,000. However, what's important is that NET PROFIT is now $2,100,000. ***GE just saved $600,000 in taxes by doing this***. The beauty of this is, divisions are supposed to charge fair market value for products FTP'd internationally; however, it's REALLY hard for the IRS to say what the value of an unfinished product really is (heck, you could be offering bulk discounts, etc.)...  The fact is, often, US divisions have skilled labor that is difficult to replicate elsewhere. They just show US divisions operating at losses to make the company as a whole better. The problem, again, arises when top management don't fully appreciate or understand the reasoning behind this stuff. They end up making cuts to US labor because it's ""unprofitable"" without thinking about the entire story.   I know this is very long winded but hope it helps!  ***tldr; companies FTP to recognizes profitability and opportunity costs of divisions as well as use it for overseas tax breaks.***  Side note: Politically speaking, people who know how this works are pissed off about it in the U.S. (don't worry though, most politicians on both sides don't have a clue). We have high corporate tax rates relative to other countries and IRS loopholes allow this kind of thing (lobbying $$). It's also why, economically, you can't just raise ***corporate*** tax rates to increase domestic tax reciepts as more companies will just implement this process (it's complicated to do properly). Also, please don't say 50 years ago tax rates were higher and raising taxes increased receipts. The fact is most companies couldn't even FATHOM doing this 50 years ago, no less even 20.  edit: some clarification in wording" I won't repeat what's already been said, but I agree that it's a good move to take advantage of the free financing so long as you read the fine print carefully, keep the money designated to pay off this debt and not use it for anything else, and make sure to pay it off before you get smacked with some bad interest. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that this kind of offer can help build credit.  You mentioned that you already have excellent credit, but for someone who has good credit, this could be an account that, if used carefully, could give their credit a boost by adding to their history of on-time payments.