What is the role of a manager in a passively managed index fund?
"There still is some buying and selling to do in a passively-managed fund.  The stocks might pay dividends.  If the fund manager didn't reinvest these dividends, the fund would begin to accumulate a cash position, which would cause it to stray from being an index fund.  Stocks come and go from an index as well; if the fund is to maintain a composition that matches a particular index, this must be taken into account as well. The role of the manager is to ensure that the fund maintains the composition that it was intended to replicate.  It doesn't involve as much ""stock picking"" that active managers do.  The manager has less leeway as to what s/he buys and sells, but there still is work involved." There is trading, and while it can be automated, someone has to define the rules for the automated system.  Why not call that person the manager?
"Index funds may invest either in index components directly or in other instruments (like ETFs, index options, futures, etc.) which are highly correlated with the index. The specific fund prospectus or description on any decent financial site should contain these details.  Index funds are not actively managed, but that does not mean they aren't managed at all - if index changes and the fund includes specific stock, they would adjust the fund content. Of course, the downside of it is that selling off large amounts of certain stock (on its low point, since it's being excluded presumably because of its decline) and buying large amount of different stock (on its raising point) may have certain costs, which would cause the fund lag behind the index. Usually the difference is not overly large, but it exists.  Investing in the index contents directly involves more transactions - which the fund distributes between members, so it doesn't usually buy individually for each member but manages the portfolio in big chunks, which saves costs. Of course, the downside is that it can lag behind the index if it's volatile. Also, in order to buy specific shares, you will have to shell out for a number of whole share prices - which for a big index may be a substantial sum and won't allow you much flexibility (like ""I want to withdraw half of my investment in S&P 500"") since you can't usually own 1/10 of a share. With index funds, the entry price is usually quite low and increments in which you can add or withdraw funds are low too." "Index funds can be a very good way to get into the stock market. It's a lot easier, and cheaper, to buy a few shares of an index fund than it is to buy a few shares in hundreds of different companies. An index fund will also generally charge lower fees than an ""actively managed"" mutual fund, where the manager tries to pick which stocks to invest for you. While the actively managed fund might give you better returns (by investing in good companies instead of every company in the index) that doesn't always work out, and the fees can eat away at that advantage. (Stocks, on average, are expected to yield an annual return of 4%, after inflation. Consider that when you see an expense ratio of 1%. Index funds should charge you more like 0.1%-0.3% or so, possibly more if it's an exotic index.) The question is what sort of index you're going to invest in. The Standard and Poor's 500 (S&P 500) is a major index, and if you see someone talking about the performance of a mutual fund or investment strategy, there's a good chance they'll compare it to the return of the S&P 500. Moreover, there are a variety of index funds and exchange-traded funds that offer very good expense ratios (e.g. Vanguard's ETF charges ~0.06%, very cheap!). You can also find some funds which try to get you exposure to the entire world stock market, e.g. Vanguard Total World Stock ETF, NYSE:VT). An index fund is probably the ideal way to start a portfolio - easy, and you get a lot of diversification. Later, when you have more money available, you can consider adding individual stocks or investing in specific sectors or regions. (Someone else suggested Brazil/Russia/Indo-China, or BRICs - having some money invested in that region isn't necessarily a bad idea, but putting all or most of your money in that region would be. If BRICs are more of your portfolio then they are of the world economy, your portfolio isn't balanced. Also, while these countries are experiencing a lot of economic growth, that doesn't always mean that the companies that you own stock in are the ones which will benefit; small businesses and new ventures may make up a significant part of that growth.) Bond funds are useful when you want to diversify your portfolio so that it's not all stocks. There's a bunch of portfolio theory built around asset allocation strategies. The idea is that you should try to maintain a target mix of assets, whatever the market's doing. The basic simplified guideline about investing for retirement says that your portfolio should have (your age)% in bonds (e.g. a 30-year-old should have 30% in bonds, a 50-year-old 50%.) This helps maintain a balance between the volatility of your portfolio (the stock market's ups and downs) and the rate of return: you want to earn money when you can, but when it's almost time to spend it, you don't want a sudden stock market crash to wipe it all out. Bonds help preserve that value (but don't have as nice of a return). The other idea behind asset allocation is that if the market changes - e.g. your stocks go up a lot while your bonds stagnate - you rebalance and buy more bonds. If the stock market subsequently crashes, you move some of your bond money back into stocks. This basically means that you buy low and sell high, just by maintaining your asset allocation. This is generally more reliable than trying to ""time the market"" and move into an asset class before it goes up (and move out before it goes down). Market-timing is just speculation. You get better returns if you guess right, but you get worse returns if you guess wrong. Commodity funds are useful as another way to diversify your portfolio, and can serve as a little bit of protection in case of crisis or inflation. You can buy gold, silver, platinum and palladium ETFs on the stock exchanges. Having a small amount of money in these funds isn't a bad idea, but commodities can be subject to violent price swings! Moreover, a bar of gold doesn't really earn any money (and owning a share of a precious-metals ETF will incur administrative, storage, and insurance costs to boot). A well-run business does earn money. Assuming you're saving for the long haul (retirement or something several decades off) my suggestion for you would be to start by investing most of your money* in index funds to match the total world stock market (with something like the aforementioned NYSE:VT, for instance), a small portion in bonds, and a smaller portion in commodity funds. (For all the negative stuff I've said about market-timing, it's pretty clear that the bond market is very expensive right now, and so are the commodities!) Then, as you do additional research and determine what sort investments are right for you, add new investment money in the places that you think are appropriate - stock funds, bond funds, commodity funds, individual stocks, sector-specific funds, actively managed mutual funds, et cetera - and try to maintain a reasonable asset allocation. Have fun. *(Most of your investment money. You should have a separate fund for emergencies, and don't invest money in stocks if you know you're going need it within the next few years)." 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. "Sure, it's irresponsible for an executor to take actions which endanger the estate.  But what about passivity or inaction?  Put it another way.  Is it the obligation of the executor to avoid making revenue for the estate?  Think about it - what a silly idea!   Consider a 12-unit apartment building full of rent paying tenants.  A tenant gives notice and leaves.  So do 4 more.  With only 7/12 tenants, the building stops being a revenue center and becomes a massive money pit.  Is that acceptable?  Heck no!  Realistically this will be managed by a property management company, and of course they'll seek new tenants, not stopping merely because the owner died.  This situation is not different; the same fiscal logic applies.  The counter-argument is usually along the lines of ""stuff might happen if you rent it out""... true. But the stuff that happens to abandoned houses is much worse, and much more likely: squatters, teen ""urban explorers"", pot growers, copper thieves, winter pipe freeze flooding and wrecking interiors, etc.  Don't take my word on it -- ask your insurer for the cost of insuring an abandoned house vs. a rented one.  Renting brings a chunk of cash that comes in from tenants - $12,000/year on a $1000/mo. rental. And that will barely pay the bills if you have a young mortgage on a freshly purchased house at recent market rates.  But on an old mortgage, renting is like printing money.  That money propagates first to the estate (presumably it is holding back a ""fix the roof"" emergency fund), and then to the beneficiaries.  It means getting annual checks from the estate, instead of constantly being dunned for another repair.  But I don't care about making revenue (outside of putting back a kitty to replace the roof).  Even if it was net zero, it means the maintenance is being done.  This being the point.  It is keeping the house in good repair, occupied, insured, and professionally managed -- fit and ready for the bequest's purpose: occupancy of an aunt.  What's the alternative?  Move an aunt into a house that's been 10 years abandoned?  Realistically the heirs are going to get tired/bored of maintaining the place at a total cash loss, maintenance will slip, and you'll be moving them into a neglected house with some serious issues.  That betrays the bequest, and it's not fair to the aunts. Rental is a very responsible thing to do.  The executor shouldn't fail to do it merely out of passivity.  If you decide not to do it, there needs to be a viable alternative to funding the home's decent upkeep.  (I don't think there is one).  Excluding a revenue-producing asset from the economy is an expensive thing to do." Backstory (since I've never submitted a link before and don't know how to write a paragraph up there):  I work as an analyst intern at a small RIA and this paper has been mentioned a few times. What do you guys think? What are the managers that actually CAN outperform benchmarks doing that most (~2/3) can't? Consistently beating the market by picking stocks is hard. Professional fund managers can't really do it -- and they get paid big bucks to try! You can spend a lot of time researching and picking stocks, and you may find that you do a decent job. I found that, given the amount of money I had invested, even if I beat the market by a couple of points, I could earn more money by picking up some moonlighting gigs instead of spending all that time researching stocks. And I knew the odds were against me beating the market very often. Different people will tell you that they have a sure-fire strategy that gets returns. The thing I wonder is: why are you selling the information to me rather than simply making money by executing on your strategy? If they're promising to beat the market by selling you their strategy, they've probably figured out that they're better off selling subscriptions than putting their own capital on the line. I've found that it is easier to follow an asset allocation strategy. I have a target allocation that gives me fairly broad diversification. Nearly all of it is in ETFs. I rebalance a couple times a year if something is too far off the target. I check my portfolio when I get my quarterly statements. Lastly, I have to echo JohnFx's statement about keeping some of your portfolio in cash. I was almost fully invested going into early 2001 and wished I had more cash to invest when everything tanked -- lesson learned. In early 2003 when the DJIA dropped to around 8000 and everybody I talked to was saying how they had sold off chunks of their 401k in a panic and were staying out of stocks, I was able to push some of my uninvested cash into the market and gained ~25% in about a year. I try to avoid market timing, but when there's obvious panic or euphoria I might under- or over-allocate my cash position, respectively. "As you alluded to in your question, there is not one answer that will be true for all mutual funds.  In fact, I would argue the question is not specific to mutual funds but can be applied to almost anyone who must make an investment decision: a mutual fund manager, hedge fund manager, or an individual investor. Even though money going into a company 401(k) retirement savings plan is typically automatically allocated to different funds as we have specified, this is generally not the case for other investment accounts. For example, I also have a Roth IRA in which I have some money from each paycheck direct deposited and it's up to me to decide whether to leave that money in cash or to invest it somewhere else.  Every time you invest more money into a mutual fund, the fund manager has the same decision to make. There are two commonly used mutual fund figures that relate to your question: turnover rate, and cash reserves. Turnover rate measures the percent of a fund's portfolio that changes every year.  For example, a turnover rate of 100% indicates that a fund replaces every asset it held at the beginning of the year with something else at the end of the year – funds with turnover rates greater than 100% average a holding period for a given asset of less than one year, and funds with turnover rates less than 100% average a holding period for a given asset of more than one year. Cash reserves simply measure the amount of money funds choose to keep as cash instead of investing in other assets. Another important distinction to make is between actively managed funds and passively managed funds. Passively managed funds are often referred to as ""index funds"" and have as their goal only to match the returns of a given index or some other benchmark.  Actively managed funds on the other hand try to beat the market by exploiting so-called market inefficiencies; e.g. buying undervalued assets, selling overvalued assets, ""timing"" the market, etc. To answer your question for a specific fund, I would encourage you to look at the fund's prospectus. I take as one example of a passively managed fund the Vanguard 500 Index Fund (VFINX), a mutual fund that was created to track the S&P 500.  In its prospectus, the fund states that, ""to track its target index as closely as possible, the Fund attempts to remain fully invested in stocks"". Furthermore, the prospectus states that ""the fund's daily cash balance may be invested in one or more Vanguard CMT Funds, which are very low-cost money market funds.""  Therefore, we would expect both this fund's turnover rate and cash reserves to be extremely low. When we look at its portfolio composition, we see this is true – it is currently at a 4.8% turnover rate and holds 0.0% in short term reserves.  Therefore, we can assume this fund is regularly purchasing shares (similar to a dollar cost averaging strategy) instead of holding on to cash and purchasing shares together at a specific time. For actively managed funds, the picture will tend to look a little different.  For example, if we look at the Magellan Fund's portfolio composition, we can see it has a turnover rate of 42%, and holds around .95% in cash/short term reserves.  In this case, we can safely guess that trading activity may not be as regular as a passively managed fund, as an active manager attempts to time the market.  You may find mutual funds that have much higher cash reserves – perhaps 10% or even more. Granted, it is impossible to know the exact trading strategy of a mutual fund, and for good reason – if we knew for example, that a fund purchases shares every day at 2:30PM in order to realign with the S&P 500, then sellers of S&P components could up the prices at that time to exploit the mutual fund's trade strategy.  Large traders are constantly trying to find ways to conceal their actual trading activity in order to avoid these exact problems. Finally, I feel obligated to note that it is important to keep in mind that trade frequency is linked to transactions costs – in general, the more frequently an investment manager (whether it be you or a mutual fund manager) executes trades, the more that manager will lose in transactions costs." Fair, but to the first point, taking action on the climate change/stranded asset risk would disqualify the fund as a passive investment. Half the point of passive funds is to take that part of risk out of the equation - poor investment decisions - and rely on the average S&amp;P500 performance instead.  I get the second point, though I question whether that point has validity until activist investors are in significant, which is a long way off.