Does it make sense to buy an index ETF (e.g. S&P 500) when the index is at an all-time high?
"Here is, from Yahoo Finance, the S&P 500 over the last ~60 years (logarithmic scale):  The behavior since ~2000 has been weird, by historical standards. And it's very easy, looking at that graph, to say ""yes! I would have made so much money had I invested in March '09!"". Of course, back in March '09, it wasn't so clear that was the bottom. But, yes, over the last 10 years or so, you could have made more money by adopting a rule that you'll accumulate cash in a FDIC (or similar) insured savings account, and dump it into an S&P index fund/ETF when the index is n% off its high. Of course, if you look at the rest of the chart, that strategy looks a lot less promising. Start in the early 80's, and you'd have held cash until the crash in 2000. Except for the recent weirdness, the general trend in the S&P 500 (and stock markets in general) has been upward. In other words, to a first-order approximation, the S&P 500 is always at an all-time high. That's just the general trend." In other words, to a first-order approximation, the S&P 500 is always at an all-time high. I'm going to run with this observation a bit. The crash of '87 was remarkable. It was a drop of 1/3 in a short time, yet, when one looked at the year, the Dow was up nearly 5% with dividends included. A one-year Rip Van Winkler would have woken up thinking it an unremarkable year.  I actually recall a conversation I had on Aug 25th 1987. I was discussing the market with a colleague over lunch, and while I didn't call the top that day, I remarked that it didn't matter much, that 5-10 years later just staying in the market would have been the right thing.    Compare this 87-95 chart to the longer term chart derobert shows. In his chart, this is all but a blip. In my chart you can see it took about 3-1/2 years to be in the black, as the market then shot up from there. A dollar cost averager would not have bought at that short term high, well not more than a tiny bit.  The best I can do to conclude is to say I'd never just buy in all at once. You buy in over time, X% of your income each month, and if you have a chunk to invest, smooth it out over a few years. In 1929 the Dow Jones Industrial Average peaked at roughly 390 just prior to the Great Depression. It did not return to that level again until 25 years later in 1954. 25 years is a long time to go without any returns, especially if you are a retiree. There is no easy answer with investing. Trying to time the tops and bottoms is widely regarded as a foolhardy endeavor, but whenever you invest you expose yourself to the possibility of this scenario. The only thing I highly recommend is not to base your decision on the historical returns from 1975 to 2000 that the other answers have presented. These returns can be explained by policy changes that many are coming to understand are unsustainable. The growth of our debt, income inequality, and monetary manipulation by central banks are all reasons to be skeptical of future returns. "Being long the S&P Index ETF you can expect to make money. The index itself will never ""crash"" because the individual stocks in it are simply removed when they begin performing badly. This is not to say that the S&P Index won't lose 80% of its value in an instant (or over a few trading sessions if circuit breakers are considered), but even in the 2008 correction, the S&P still traded far above book value. With this in mind, you have to realize, that despite common sentiment, the indexes are hardly representative of ""the market"". They are just a derivative, and as you might be aware, derivatives can enable financial tricks far removed from reality. Regarding index funds, if a small group of people decide that 401k's are performing badly, then they will simply rebalance the components of the indexes with companies that are doing well. The headline will be ""S&P makes ANOTHER record high today"" So although panic selling can disrupt the order book, especially during periods of illiquidity, with the current structure ""the stock market"" being based off of three composite indexes, can never crash, because there will always exist a company that is not exposed to broad market fluctuations and will be performing better by fundamentals and share price. Similarly, you collect dividends from the index ETFs. You can also sell covered calls on your holdings. The CBOE has a chart through the 2008 crisis showing your theoretical profit and loss if you sold calls 2 standard deviations out of the money, at every monthly interval. If you are going to be holding an index ETF for a long time, then you shouldn't be concerned about its share price at all, since the returns would be pretty abysmal either way, but it should suffice for hedging inflation." "The simple answer is: Where 'think' stands for ""after your calculations, and guts/intuitions, and analysis"", of course."
"There are a few reasons why an index mutual fund may be preferable to an ETF: I looked at the iShare S&P 500 ETF and it has an expense ratio of 0.07%.  The Vanguard Admiral S&P 500 index has an expense ratio of 0.05% and the Investor Shares have an expense ratio of 0.17%, do I don't necessarily agree with your statement ""admiral class Vanguard shares don't beat the iShares ETF""." "I actually love this question, and have hashed this out with a friend of mine where my premise was that at some volume of money it must be advantageous to simply track the index yourself. There some obvious touch-points: Most people don't have anywhere near the volume of money required for even a $5 commission outweigh the large index fund expense ratios. There are logistical issues that are massively reduced by holding a fund when it comes to winding down your investment(s) as you get near retirement age. Index funds are not touted as categorically ""the best"" investment, they are being touted as the best place for the average person to invest. There is still a management component to an index like the S&P500.  The index doesn't simply buy a share of Apple and watch it over time.  The S&P 500 isn't simply a single share of each of the 500 larges US companies it's market cap weighted with frequent rebalancing and constituent changes.  VOO makes a lot of trades every day to track the S&P index, ""passive index investing"" is almost an oxymoron. The most obvious part of this is that if index funds were ""the best"" way to invest money Berkshire Hathaway would be 100% invested in VOO.  The argument for ""passive index investing"" is simplified for public consumption.  The reality is that over time large actively managed funds have under-performed the large index funds net of fees.  In part, the thrust of the advice is that the average person is, or should be, more concerned with their own endeavors than they are managing their savings.  Investment professionals generally want to avoid ""How come I my money only returned 4% when the market index returned 7%?  If you track the index, you won't do worse than the index; this helps people sleep better at night. In my opinion the dirty little secret of index funds is that they are able to charge so much less because they spend $0 making investment decisions and $0 on researching the quality of the securities they hold.  They simply track an index; XYZ company is 0.07% of the index, then the fund carries 0.07% of XYZ even if the manager thinks something shady is going on there. The argument for a majority of your funds residing in Mutual Funds/ETFs is simple, When you're of retirement age do you really want to make decisions like should I sell a share of Amazon or a share of Exxon?  Wouldn't you rather just sell 2 units of SRQ Index fund and completely maintain your investment diversification and not pay commission?  For this simplicity you give up three basis points?  It seems pretty reasonable to me." "You cannot actually buy an index in the true sense of the word.  An index is created and maintained by a company like Standard and Poor's who licenses the use of the index to firms like Vanguard.  The S&P 500 is an example of an index.  The S&P 500 ""index includes 500 leading companies"", many finical companies sell products which track to this index.  The two most popular products which track to indexes are Mutual Funds (as called Index Funds and Index Mutual Funds) and Exchange Traded Funds (as called ETFs).  Each Index Mutual Fund or ETF has an index which it tracks against, meaning they hold securities which make up a sample of the index (some indexes like bond indexes are very hard to hold everything that makes them up). Looking at the Vanguard S&P 500 Index Mutual Fund (ticker VFINX) we see that it tracks against the S&P 500 index.  Looking at its holdings we see the 500-ish stocks that it holds along with a small amount of bonds and cash to handle cash flow for people buying and sell shares.  If we look at the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (ticker VOO) we see that it also tracks against the S&P 500 index.  Looking at its holdings we see they are very similar to the similar Index Mutual Fund. Other companies like T. Rowe Price have similar offering.  Look at the T. Rowe Price Equity Index 500 Fund (ticker PREIX) its holdings in stocks are the same as the similar Vanguard fund and like the Vanguard fund it also holds a small amount of bonds and cash to handle cash flow. The only real difference between different products which track against the same index is in the expense ratio (fees for managing the fund) and in the small differences in the execution of the funds.  For the most part execution of the funds do not really matter to most people (it has a very small effect), what matters is the expense (the fees paid to own the fund).  If we just compare the expense ratio of the Vanguard and T. Rowe Price funds we see (as of 27 Feb 2016) Vanguard has an expense ratio of 0.17% for it Index Mutual Fund and 0.05% for its ETF, while T. Rowe Price has an expense ratio of 0.27%.  These are just the fees for the funds themselves, there are also account maintenance fees (which normally go down as the amount of money you have invested at a firm go up) and in the case of ETFs execution cost (cost to trade the shares along with the difference between the bid and ask on the shares). If you are just starting out I would say going with the Index Mutual Fund would easier and most likely would cost less over-all if you are buying a small amount of shares every month.  When choosing a company look at the expense ratio on the funds and the account maintenance fees (along with the account minimals).  Vanguard is well known for having low fees and they in fact were the first to offer Index Mutual Funds. For more info on the S&P 500 index see also this Investopedia entry on the S&P 500 index. Do not worry if this is all a bit confusing it is to most people (myself included) at first." "If you want a Do-It-Yourself solution, look to a Vanguard account with their total market index funds.   There's a lot of research that's been done recently in the financial independence community.  Basically, there's not many money managers who can outperform the market index (either S&P 500 or a total market index).  Actually, no mutual funds have been identified that outperform the market, after fees, consistently.  So there's not much sense in paying someone to earn you less than a low fee index fund could do.  And some of the numbers show that you can actually lose value on your 401k due to high fees. That's where Vanguard comes in.  They offer some of the lowest fees (if not the lowest) and a selection of index funds that will let you balance your portfolio the way you want.  Whether you want to go 100% total stock market index fund or a balance between total stock market index fund and total bond index fund, or a ""lazy 3 fund portfolio"", Vanguard gives you the tools to do it yourself.  Rebalancing would require about an hour every quarter. (Or time span you declare yourself). jlcollinsnh A Simple Path to Wealth is my favorite blog about financial independence.  Also, Warren Buffet recommended that the trustees for his wife's inheritance when he passes invest her trust in one investment.  Vanguard's S&P500 index fund.  The same fund he chose in a 10 year $1M bet vs. hedge fund managers.  (proceeds go to charity).  That was about 9 years ago.  So far, Buffet's S&P500 is beating the hedge funds.  Investopedia Article" If you find a particular stock to be overvalued at $200 for example and a reasonable value at $175, you can place a limit order at the price you want to pay. If/when the stock price falls to your desired purchase price, the transaction takes place. Your broker can explain how long a limit order can stay open. This method allows you to take advantage of flash crashes when some savvy stock trader decides to game the market. This tactic works better with more volatile or low-volume stocks. If it works for an S&P500 tracking ETF, you have bigger problems. :) Another tactic is to put money into your brokerage cash account on a regular basis and buy those expensive stocks & funds when you have accumulated enough money to do so. This money won't earn you any interest while it sits in the cash account, but it's there, ready to be deployed at a moment's notice when you have enough to purchase those expensive assets. I think it's great idea.  Many large brokerages give customers access to a pretty sizable list of zero commission, zero load funds.  In this list of funds will certainly be an S&P 500 index.  So you can open your account for free, deposit your $1,000 for free and invest it in an S&P index for no cost.  You'll pay a very negligible amount in annual expense fees and you'll owe taxes on your gain if you have to use the money.  I don't follow the school of thought that all investment money should be in retirement account jail. But I think if you have your spending under control, you have your other finances in order and just want to place money somewhere, you're on the right track with this idea. 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. "I actually love this question, and have hashed this out with a friend of mine where my premise was that at some volume of money it must be advantageous to simply track the index yourself. There some obvious touch-points: Most people don't have anywhere near the volume of money required for even a $5 commission outweigh the large index fund expense ratios. There are logistical issues that are massively reduced by holding a fund when it comes to winding down your investment(s) as you get near retirement age. Index funds are not touted as categorically ""the best"" investment, they are being touted as the best place for the average person to invest. There is still a management component to an index like the S&P500.  The index doesn't simply buy a share of Apple and watch it over time.  The S&P 500 isn't simply a single share of each of the 500 larges US companies it's market cap weighted with frequent rebalancing and constituent changes.  VOO makes a lot of trades every day to track the S&P index, ""passive index investing"" is almost an oxymoron. The most obvious part of this is that if index funds were ""the best"" way to invest money Berkshire Hathaway would be 100% invested in VOO.  The argument for ""passive index investing"" is simplified for public consumption.  The reality is that over time large actively managed funds have under-performed the large index funds net of fees.  In part, the thrust of the advice is that the average person is, or should be, more concerned with their own endeavors than they are managing their savings.  Investment professionals generally want to avoid ""How come I my money only returned 4% when the market index returned 7%?  If you track the index, you won't do worse than the index; this helps people sleep better at night. In my opinion the dirty little secret of index funds is that they are able to charge so much less because they spend $0 making investment decisions and $0 on researching the quality of the securities they hold.  They simply track an index; XYZ company is 0.07% of the index, then the fund carries 0.07% of XYZ even if the manager thinks something shady is going on there. The argument for a majority of your funds residing in Mutual Funds/ETFs is simple, When you're of retirement age do you really want to make decisions like should I sell a share of Amazon or a share of Exxon?  Wouldn't you rather just sell 2 units of SRQ Index fund and completely maintain your investment diversification and not pay commission?  For this simplicity you give up three basis points?  It seems pretty reasonable to me."