Is there any evidence that “growth”-style indexes and growth ETFs outperform their respective base indexes?
The value premium would state the opposite in fact if one looks at the work of Fama and French. The Investment Entertainment Pricing Theory (INEPT) shows a graph with the rates on small-cap/large-cap and growth/value combinations that may be of interest as well for another article noting the same research. Index fund advisors in Figure 9-1 shows various historical returns up to 2012 that may also be useful here for those wanting more detailed data. How to Beat the Benchmark is from 1998 that could be interesting to read about index funds and beating the index in a simpler way. "They don't, actually. Though in some time frames S&P 500 growth out performs S&P 500, it often lags. This is because ""growth"" doesn't refer to what happens to your account, but rather the type of stock in the index -- roughly speaking, it's the half of the S&P with the best earnings growth.  That would be great, except it's not looking for is to see if that growth is worth buying. A stock with a 20% growth rate is a great buy at a P/E of 15, but a terrible buy at P/E/ 50.  That leads to what JB King was talking about -- there's also the S&P 500 Value, which is roughly the cheapest stocks relative to earnings. Value does tend to beat the broad index over the long haul, because there's nothing like getting a good deal (note a stock can be in both the growth and value categories). This holds true with other indexes as well like the Russel 2000. All that said, you're not going to see a huge difference between S&P 500 and S&P 500 Growth. I believe this is because the S&P 500 itself leans a bit to the growthy side.   PS: With VOOG Vanguard is tracking the S&P 500 Growth Index, which is actually a thing and not Vanguard itself filtering stocks." You are correct that over a short term there is no guarantee that one index will out perform another index. Every index goes through periods of feat and famine. That uis why the advice is to diversify your investments. Every index does have some small amount of management. For the parent index (the S&P 500 in this case) there is a process to divide all 500 stocks into growth and value, pure growth and pure value. This rebalancing of the 500 stocks occurs once a year. Rebalancing The S&P Style indices are rebalanced once a year in December. The   December rebalancing helps set the broad universe and benchmark for   active managers on an annual cycle consistent with active manager   performance evaluation cycles. The rebalancing date is the third   Friday of December, which coincides with the December quarterly share   changes for the S&P Composite 1500.  Style Scores,   market-capitalization weights, growth and value midpoint averages, and   the Pure Weight Factors (PWFs), where applicable across the various   Style indices, are reset only once a year at the December rebalancing. Other changes to the U.S. Style indices are made on an as-needed   basis, following the guidelines of the parent index. Changes in   response to corporate actions and market developments can be made at   any time. Constituent changes are typically announced for the parent   index two-to-five days before they are scheduled to be implemented. Please refer to the S&P U.S. Indices Methodology document for   information on standard index maintenance for the S&P 500, the S&P   MidCap 400,the S&P SmallCap 600 and all related indices. As to which is better: 500, growth,value or growth and value? That depends on what you the investor is trying to do.
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. I will attempt to answer three separate questions here: The standard answer is that an emergency fund should not be in an investment that can lose value.  The safest course of action is to put it in a savings account or other very low risk investment somewhere. This question becomes: can a reasonable and low risk investment in Sweden be comparable to or better than a low risk investment in Brazil? Inflation in Brazil has averaged a little less than 6% over the last 10 years with a recent spike up above 8%.  A cursory search indicates interest rates on savings accounts in Brazil are outpacing inflation so you might still expect a positive return on money in a savings account there. By contrast, Sweden's inflation rate has been around 1% over the last 10 years and has hovered around 0 or even deflation in recent years.  Swedish interest rates for savings accounts right now are very low, nearly 0%.  Putting money in a savings account in Sweden would likely hold its value or lose a slight amount of value. Based on this, you might be better off leaving your emergency fund invested in BRL in Brazil. The answer to this a little unclear.  The Brazilian stock market has been all over the place in the last 10 years, with a slight downard trend in recent years.  In comparison, Sweden's stock market has shown fairly consistent growth in spite of the big dip in 2008.  Given this, it seems like the fairest comparison would your current 13% ROI investment in Brazil vs. a fund or ETF that tracks the Swedish stock market index. If we assume a consistent 13% ROI on your investment in Brazil and a consistent inflation rate of 6%, your adjusted ROI there would be around 7% per year. The XACT OMS30 ETF that tracks the Swedish OMS 30 Index has a 10 year annualized return of 9.81%.  If you subtract 0.8% inflation, you get an adjusted ROI 9%. Based on this, Sweden may be a safer place for longer term, moderate risk investments right now. I thought the crux of the argument was that they were supposed to offset the tax cuts with an expansion of the tax base through growth.  If that story were true (and there's a fair bit of evidence that it's not) then why would they need to cut spending?  The reason the CBO shouldn't score the expected growth from a tax cut is because we've seen very little evidence for significant growth from it--and not because we've never seen the long term impacts of a cut, but rather because they didn't result in growth. "Different stocks balance dividend versus growth differently. Some have relatively flat value but pay a strong dividend -- utility stocks used to be examples of that model, and bonds are in some sense an extreme version of this. Some, especially startups, pay virtually no dividends and aim for growth in the value of the stock. And you can probably find a stock that hits any point between these. This is the ""growth versus income"" spectrum you may have heard mentioned. In the past, investors took more of their return on investment as dividends -- conceptually, a share of the company's net profits for the year reflecting the share's status as partial ownership. If you wanted to do so, you could use the dividend to purchase more shares (via a dividend reinvestment plan or not), but that was up to you. These days, with growth having been strongly hyped, many companies have shifted much more to the growth model and dividends are often relatively wimpy. Essentially, this assumes that everyone wants the money reinvested and will take their profit by having that increase the value of their shares. Of course that's partly because some percentage of stockholders have been demanding growth at all costs, not always realistically.  To address your specific case: No, you probably aren't buying Microsoft because you like its dividend rate; you're buying it in the hope it continues to grow in stock value. But the dividend is a bit of additional return on your investment. And with other companies the tradeoff will be different. That's one of the things, along with how much you believe in the company, that would affect your decision when buying shares in specific companies. (Personally I mostly ignore the whole issue, since I'm in index funds rather than individual stocks. Picking the fund sets my overall preference in terms of growth versus income; after that it's their problem to maintain that balance.)" "The June 2014 issue of Barclays Wealth's Compass magazine had a very nice succinct article on this topic: ""Value investing – does a rules-based approach work?"".  It examines the performance of value and growth styles of investment in the MSCI World and S&P500 arenas for a few decades back, and reveals a surprisingly complicated picture, depending on sector, region and time-period. Their summary is basically: A closer look however shows that the overall success of value   strategies derives mainly from the 1970s and 1980s. ... in the US, value has underperformed growth for over 25 years   since peaking in July 1988. Globally, value experienced a 30% setback   in the late 1990s so that there are now periods with a length of   nearly 13 years over which growth has outperformed. So the answer to ""does it beat the market?"" is  ""it depends..."". Update in response to comment below: the question of risk adjusted returns is interesting.  To quote another couple of fragments from the piece: Since December 1974, [MSCI world] value has outperformed growth by   2.6% annually, with lower risk. This outperformance on a risk-adjusted   basis is the so-called value premium that Eugene Fama and Kenneth   French first identified in 1992... and That outperformance has, however, come with more risk. Historical   volatility of the pure style indices has been 21-22% compared to 16%   for the market. ... From a maximum drawdown perspective, the 69% drop   of pure value during the financial crisis exceeded the 51% drop of the   overall market." Here's the 2009-2014 return of the S&P 500 (SPY) vs. Vanguard FTSE ex-US (VEU) (higher returns bolded) Another argument for them is their low correlation to U.S stocks.   Looking at history however, I don't see it. Most times U.S stocks have   done badly, foreign stocks have also done badly. Looking at the last 6 years (and current YTD), 1 in 3 years have international stocks doing better.    I invest a portion of my investments in international because they aren't well correlated. "Back-testing itself is flawed. ""Past performance is no guarantee of future results"" is an important lesson to understand. Market strategies of one kind or another work until they don't.  Edited in -- AssetPlay.net provides a tool that's halfway to what you are looking for. It only goes back to 1972, however. Just to try it, I compared 100% S&P to a 60/40 blend of S&P with 5 yr t-bills (a misnamed asset, 5 yr treasuries are 'notes' not 'bills') I found the mix actually had a better return with lower volatility.  Now, can I count on that to work moving forward? Rates fell during most of this entire period so bonds/notes both looked pretty good. This is my point regarding the backtest concept.  GeniusTrader appears more sophisticated, but command line work on PCs is beyond me. It may be worth a look for you, JP. ETF Replay appears to be another backtest tool. It has its drawbacks, however, (ETFs only)" There are the EDHEC-risk indices based on similar hedge fund types but even then an IR would give you performance relative to the competition, which is not useful for most hf's as investors don't say I want to buy a global macro fund, vs a stat arb fund, investors say I want to pay a guy to give me more money!  Most investors don't care how the OTHER funds did or where the market went, they want that NAV to go always up , which is why a modified sharpe is probably better.