Why are taxes on actively managed funds higher than those on index funds?
This depends on the particular index, of course. Capital gains taxes occur when stock is sold (for a profit). This occurs less frequently in an index fund: Where an active manager frequently buys and sells stocks (after all, he wants to be active :-) ), the index fund only sells stocks when the particular stock leaves the index. For an index such as the S&P 500 this does not happen that often.  The more specific the criteria of the index fund, the more often the selling of stock and thus the need to pay capital gains taxes occurs. "First, consider what causes taxes to apply to a mutual fund, index or actively managed.  Dividends and capital gains are generally what will be distributed to shareholders given the nature of a mutual fund since the fund itself doesn't pay taxes.  For funds held in IRAs or other tax-advantaged accounts, this isn't a concern and thus people may not have this concern for those situations which can account for a lot of investing situations as people may have 401(k)s and IRAs that hold their investments rather than taxable accounts. Second, there can be tax-managed funds so there can be cases where a fund is managed with taxes in mind that is worth noting here as what is referenced is a ""Dummies"" link that is making a generalization.  For taxable accounts, it may make more sense to have a tax-managed fund rather than an index fund though I'd also argue to be careful of asset allocation as to maintain a purity of style can require selling of stocks that grow too big and thus trigger capital gains,e.g. small-cap and mid-cap funds that can't hold onto the winners as they would become mid-cap and large-cap instead of representing the proper asset class. A FUND THAT PLAYED IT SAFE--AND WAS SORRY would be a Businessweek story from 1998 of an actively managed fund that went mostly to cash and missed the rise of the stock market at that time if you want a specific example of what an actively managed fund can do that an index fund often cannot do.  The index fund is to track the index and stay nearly all invested all the time."
"I read the book, and I'm willing to believe you'd have a good chance of beating the market with this strategy - it is a reasonable, rational, and mechanical investment discipline. I doubt it's overplayed and overused to the point that it won't ever work again. But only IF you stick to it, and doing so would be very hard (behaviorally). Which is probably why it isn't overplayed and overused already. This strategy makes you place trades in companies you often won't have heard of, with volatile prices. The best way to use the strategy would be to try to get it automated somehow and avoid looking at the individual stocks, I bet, to take your behavior out of it. There may well be some risk factors in this strategy that you don't have in an S&P 500 fund, and those could explain some of the higher returns; for example, a basket of sketchier companies could be more vulnerable to economic events. The strategy won't beat the market every year, either, so that can test your behavior. Strategies tend to work and then stop working (as the book even mentions). This is related to  whether other investors are piling in to the strategy and pushing up prices, in part.  But also, outside events can just happen to line up poorly for a given strategy; for example a bunch of the ""fundamental index"" ETFs that looked at dividend yield launched right before all the high-dividend financials cratered. Investing in high-dividend stocks probably is and was a reasonable strategy in general, but it wasn't a great strategy for a couple years there. Anytime you don't buy the whole market, you risk both positive and negative deviations from it. Here's maybe a bigger-picture point, though. I happen to think ""beating the market"" is a big old distraction for individual investors; what you really want is predictable, adequate returns, who cares if the market returns 20% as long as your returns are adequate, and who cares if you beat the market by 5% if the market cratered 40%. So I'm not a huge fan of investment books that are structured around the topic of beating the market. Whether it's index fund advocates saying ""you can't beat the market so buy the index"" or Greenblatt saying ""here's how to beat the market with this strategy,"" it's still all about beating the market. And to me, beating the market is just irrelevant. Nobody ever bought their food in retirement because they did or did not beat the market. To me, beating the market is a game for the kind of actively-managed mutual fund that has a 90%-plus R-squared correlation with the index; often called an ""index hugger,"" these funds are just trying to eke out a little bit better result than the market, and often get a little bit worse result, and overall are a lot of effort with no purpose. Just get the index fund rather than these. If you're getting active management involved, I'd rather see a big deviation from the index, and I'd like that deviation to be related to risk control: hedging, or pulling back to cash when valuations get rich, or avoiding companies without a ""moat"" and margin of safety, or whatever kind of risk control, but something. In a fund like this, you aren't trying to beat the market, you're trying to increase the chances of adequate returns - you're optimizing for predictability. I'm not sure the magic formula is the best way to do that, focused as it is on beating the market rather than on risk control. Sorry for the extra digression but I hope I answered the question a bit, too. ;-)" "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." With regard to commodity futures, a paper released in January 2010 by Aulerich, Irwin, and Garcia, concluded that index funds have essentially no impact on commodity futures. Looking at stocks, a stock that gets included in a major index does increase in price. It increases its turnover by 27% and increases its price by between 2.7% and 5.5%, according to information cited by Kula in this paper, though it looks like the price increase tends to happen in the lead up to the stock being included. Interestingly, I have read an article but cannot now locate it, which states that there's a measurable, albeit fairly small, price bubble on stocks included in common indexes, on Monday mornings, Friday afternoons, and at the start and end of the month. That is, the times when mutual funds are most likely to rebalance their holdings. This almost certainly applies to a lesser extent to other stocks, too. My understanding is that the price difference was very small, however. Generally speaking, stocks which make part of well-known indexes will tend to be in higher demand than stocks which do not. It remains the case that almost all actively-managed mutual funds are unable to consistently beat the indexes, even with this taken into account. Behind the scenes, mutual funds and ETFs are very similar.  Both can vary widely in purpose and policies, which is why understanding the prospectus before investing is so important. Since both mutual funds and ETFs cover a wide range of choices, any discussion of management, assets, or expenses when discussing the differences between the two is inaccurate.  Mutual funds and ETFs can both be either managed or index-based,  high expense or low expense, stock or commodity backed. Method of investing When you invest in a mutual fund, you typically set up an account with the mutual fund company and send your money directly to them.  There is often a minimum initial investment required to open your mutual fund account.  Mutual funds sometimes, but not always, have a load, which is a fee that you pay either when you put money in or take money out. An ETF is a mutual fund that is traded like a stock.  To invest, you need a brokerage account that can buy and sell stocks.  When you invest, you pay a transaction fee, just as you would if you purchase a stock.  There isn't really a minimum investment required as there is with a traditional mutual fund, but you usually need to purchase whole shares of the ETF.  There is inherently no load with ETFs. Tax treatment Mutual funds and ETFs are usually taxed the same.  However, capital gain distributions, which are taxable events that occur while you are holding the investment, are more common with mutual funds than they are with ETFs, due to the way that ETFs are structured.  (See Fidelity: ETF versus mutual funds: Tax efficiency for more details.)  That having been said, in an index fund, capital gain distributions are rare anyway, due to the low turnover of the fund. Conclusion When comparing a mutual fund and ETF with similar objectives and expenses and deciding which to choose, it more often comes down to convenience.  If you already have a brokerage account and you are planning on making a one-time investment, an ETF could be more convenient.  If, on the other hand, you have more than the minimum initial investment required and you also plan on making additional regular monthly investments, a traditional no-load mutual fund account could be more convenient and less expensive. "One reason is that it is not possible (at Vanguard and at many other brokerages) to auto-invest into ETFs.  Because the ETF trades like a stock, you typically must buy a whole number of shares.  This makes it difficult to do auto-investing where you invest, say, a fixed dollar amount each month.  If you're investing $100 and the ETF trades for $30 a share, you must either buy 3 shares and leave $10 unspent, or buy 4 and spend $20 more than you planned.  This makes auto-investing with dollar amounts difficult.  (It would be cool if there were brokerages that handled this for you, for instance by accumulating ""leftover"" cash until an additional whole share could be purchased, but I don't know of any.) A difference of 0.12% in the expense ratios is real, but small.  It may be outweighed by the psychological gains of being able to adopt a ""hands-off"" auto-investing plan.  With ETFs, you generally must remember to ""manually"" buy the shares yourself every so often.  For many average investors, the advantage of being able to invest without having to think about it at all is worth a small increase in expense ratio.  The 0.12% savings don't do you any good if you never remember to buy shares until the market is already up." 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. This is probably the best, most concise and yet detailed answer to this oft-posed question I've seen on this sub. Have an upvote. Only thing I'd add is that HFs' comparatively more active approach creates a moat vs. mutual funds, which are seen as more long-term, passive investments. This means they can charge fees and have higher expense ratios (though obviously anyone in finance who has been conscious in the last five years knows that this is changing) "Hope springs eternal in the human breast. No actively managed fund has beaten the indices over a long period of time, but over shorter periods, actively managed funds have beaten the indices quite often, sometimes quite spectacularly, and sometimes even for many years in a row. Examples from the past include Fidelity Magellan and Legg Mason Value Trust. So people buy actively managed funds hoping to cash in on such  good performance. The difficulty is, of course, that many people don't even think about investing in a fund until it is listed in some ""Top Forty Funds of last year"" compilation, and for many funds, they have already peaked, and new buyers are often disappointed.  Some  people who invested earlier plan on getting out of the fund before  the fund falls flat on its face, and fewer even succeed in doing so. As to why 401k plans often have high-cost actively managed funds, there are several reasons. A most important one is that there are numerous companies that act as administrators of 401k programs and these companies put together package deals of 401k programs (funds, administrative costs etc), and small employers perforce have to choose from one of these packages.  Second, there are various rules that have come into existence since the first days of 401k (and 403b) programs such as the investment choices must include funds of different types, and actively managed funds (large cap, small cap etc) are one of the choices that must be offered. Gone are the days when the only choice was a variable annuity offered by the insurance company administering the 401k program. Finally, program participants also have hopes (cf. opening sentence) and used to demand that the 401k program offer a few actively managed funds, not just index funds."