ETFs mirroring consistently outperforming companies?
What you may be looking for are multi-manager ETFs; these invest in a basket of diversified funds to get the best out of all of the funds. The problem with multi-manager funds is, of course, that you pay fees twice; once to the fund itself and once to each of the funds in the fund. The low fees on ETFs mean that it is not very profitable to actively maintain one so there are not many around (Googling returns very few). Noting that historic success doesn't guarantee future success and that fees are being applied to fees these funds only really benefit from diversification of manager performance risk. partial source of information and an example of a (non-outperforming) Multi-manager ETF: http://www.etfstrategy.co.uk/advisorshares-sets-date-for-multi-manager-etf-with-charitable-twist-give-53126/
First off, some companies do something like this.  Microsoft for example was well-known for consistently hitting earnings estimates every quarter - nearly never missed them, and most of the time didn't exceed by much either.  In order to do this and not be prosecuted for accounting fraud, you typically have to be a service or nontangible good company (like Microsoft used to be) where you can manipulate the amount of product on hand and move costs fairly easily from one quarter to the next.  A company like, say, Home Depot or Caterpillar - both of which have tangible goods they're either retailing or producing - has less flexibility there, although they will still try to move profits around to match earnings estimates more closely. However, you have to be consistently doing well to be able to do this.  You can't manufacture additional total revenue; so if you have one 'down' quarter, you have to either have moved some revenue into it from the previous quarter, or you have to be able to move some into it from the next quarter.  That obviously doesn't work consistently unless you're a fast-growing company, or have an extremely stable base.  It's also hard to do this in a legal-seeming fashion - technically this sort of manipulation is illegal, so decisions have to be justifiable.  Companies (like Microsoft) that are expanding can also do things to encourage slightly lower expectations.  A company in need of a stock price bump issues press releases touting its inventions and products as amazing things that will drive profits through the roof and an aggressive profit forecast - just as easy to issue a press release with a conservative forecast, meaning the bar will be lower to hit.   It's also not really necessary to manipulate earnings to have a consistently well-performing stock.  This article for example shows that companies who miss earnings estimates don't really suffer much (when controlling for their actual earnings changes, of course) in the long run.  Your price might drop a bit, but if your company is otherwise sound, it will recover. Finally, companies do sometimes come out with information ahead of earnings that cause expectations to be lowered.  7-Eleven for example just lowered its earnings expectations due to various reasons.  Some companies choose to do this in order to dilute the effect on the market.  I'm not sure if this is ever required, but it seems to me that some companies are much quicker to restate earnings expectations than others. This sounds like a real consistency issue, then. When it comes to saying one thing and doing another with regard to spending money it seems common that a company just hasn't figured out why that kind of consistency is important.  To me it's a question of ROI. If a company insists on huge money-blowing events, what's the return? What is that event supposed to achieve, and is it worth it? Huge money blowing events can certainly be worth it when they actually generate long-term sales, significantly boost employee morale (in turn generating sales, hopefully) or similar. But as you obviously know, if all the employees involved in the event feel like it's bullshit before, during, and after it goes down then somebody didn't really look at the ROI before approving it. While we're not supposed to make direct recommendations, and I am in no way advising anything, USO an ETF that buys light sweet crude oil futures with the intention of mirroring the price movements of oil. There's a few different types of investments you could do. As poolie mentioned, you could split your money between the Vanguard All World ex-US and Vanguard Total Stock Market index. A similar approach would be to invest in the Vanguard Total World Stock ETF. You wouldn't have to track separate fund performances, at the downside of not being able to allocate differential amounts to the US and non-US markets (Vanguard will allocate them by market cap). You could consider investing in country-specific broad market indices like the S&P 500 and FTSE 100. While not as diversified as the world indices, they are more correlated with the country's economic outlook. Other common investing paradigms are investing in companies which have historically paid out high dividends and companies that are under-valued by the market but have good prospects for future growth. This gets in the domain of value investing, which an entire field by itself. Like Andrew mentioned, investing in a mutual fund is hassle-free. However, mutual fees/commissions and taxes can be higher (somewhere in the range 1%-5%) than index funds/ETF expense ratios (typically <0.50%), so they would have to outperform the market by a bit to break-even. There are quite a few good books out there to read up about investing. I'd recommend The Intelligent Investor and Millionaire Teacher to understand the basics of long-term investing, but of course, there are many other equally good books too. "Of course. ""Best"" is a subjective term. However relying on the resources of the larger institutions by pooling with them will definitely reduce your own burden with regards to the research and keeping track. So yes, investing in mutual funds and ETFs is a very sound strategy. It would be better to diversify, and not to invest all your money in one fund, or in one industry/area. That said, there are more than enough individuals who do their own research and stock picking and invest, with various degrees of success, in individual securities. Some also employe more advanced strategies such as leveraging, options, futures, margins, etc. These advance strategies come at a greater risk, but may bring a greater rewards as well. So the answer to the question in the subject line is YES. For all the rest - there's no one right or wrong answer, it depends greatly on your abilities, time, risk tolerance, cash available to invest, etc etc." What is your time horizon? Over long horizons, you absolutely want to minimise the expense ratio – a seemingly puny 2% fee p.a. can cost you a third of your savings over 35 years. Over short horizons, the cost of trading in and trading out might matter more. A mutual fund might be front-loaded, i.e. charge a fixed initial percentage when you first purchase it. ETFs, traded daily on an exchange just like a stock, don't have that. What you'll pay there is the broker commission, and the bid-ask spread (and possibly any premium/discount the ETF has vis-a-vis the underlying asset value).  Another thing to keep in mind is tracking error: how closely does the fond mirror the underlying index it attempts to track? More often than not it works against you. However, not sure there is a systematic difference between ETFs and funds there. Size and age of a fund can matter, indeed - I've had new and smallish ETFs that didn't take off close down, so I had to sell and re-allocate the money. Two more minor aspects: Synthetic ETFs and lending to short sellers. 1) Some ETFs are synthetic, that is, they don't buy all the underlying shares replicating the index, actually owning the shares. Instead, they put the money in the bank and enter a swap with a counter-party, typically an investment bank, that promises to pay them the equivalent return of holding that share portfolio. In this case, you have (implicit) credit exposure to that counter-party - if the index performs well, and they don't pay up, well, tough luck. The ETF was relying on that swap, never really held the shares comprising the index, and won't necessarily cough up the difference. 2) In a similar vein, some (non-synthetic) ETFs hold the shares, but then lend them out to short sellers, earning extra money. This will increase the profit of the ETF provider, and potentially decrease your expense ratio (if they pass some of the profit on, or charge lower fees). So, that's a good thing. In case of an operational screw up, or if the short seller can't fulfil their obligations to return the shares, there is a risk of a loss.  These two considerations are not really a factor in normal times (except in improving ETF expense ratios), but during the 2009 meltdown they were floated as things to consider. Mutual funds and ETFs re-invest or pay out dividends. For a given mutual fund, you might be able to choose, while ETFs typically are of one type or the other. Not sure how tax treatment differs there, though, sorry (not something I have to deal with in my jurisdiction).  As a rule of thumb though, as alex vieux says, for a popular index, ETFs will be cheaper over the long term. Very low cost mutual funds, such as Vanguard, might be competitive though. "As Dheer pointed out, the top ten mega-cap corporations account for a huge part (20%) of your ""S&P 500"" portfolio when weighted proportionally. This is one of the reasons why I have personally avoided the index-fund/etf craze -- I don't really need another mechanism to buy ExxonMobil, IBM and Wal-Mart on my behalf. I like the equal-weight concept -- if I'm investing in a broad sector (Large Cap companies), I want diversification across the entire sector and avoid concentration. The downside to this approach is that there will be more portfolio turnover (and expense), since you're holding more shares of the lower tranches of the index where companies are more apt to churn. (ie. #500 on the index gets replaced by an up and comer). So you're likely to have a higher expense ratio, which matters to many folks." You haven't looked very far if you didn't find index tracking exchange-traded funds (ETFs) on the Toronto Stock Exchange. There are at least a half dozen major exchange-traded fund families that I'm aware of, including Canadian-listed offerings from some of the larger ETF providers from the U.S. The Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) maintains a list of ETF providers that have products listed on the TSX.