Is Bogleheadism (index fund investing) dead?
The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated. - Twain I use index funds in my retirement planning, but don't stick to just S&P 500 index funds. Suppose I balance my money 50/50 between Small Cap and Large Cap and say I have $10,000.  I'd buy $5,000 of an S&P Index fund and $5,000 of a Russell 2000 index fund. Now, fast forward a year.  Suppose the S&P Index fund has $4900 and the Russell Index fund has $5200.   Sell $150 of Russell Index Fund and buy $150 of S&P 500 Index funds to balance.  Repeat that activity every 12-18 months.  This lets you be hands off (index fund-style) on your investment choices but still take advantage of great markets.   This way, I can still rebalance to sell high and buy low, but I'm not stressing about an individual stock or mutual fund choice. You can repeat this model with more categories, I chose two for the simplicity of explaining. If the ship is sinking, switching cabins with your neighbor isn't necessarily a good survival strategy. Index funds have sucked, because frankly just about everything has sucked lately. I still think it is a viable long term strategy as long as you are doing some dollar cost averaging.  You can't think about long term investing as a steady climb up a hill, markets are erratic, but over long periods of time trend upwards. Now is your chance to get in near the ground floor.  I can completely empathize that it is painful right now, but I am a believer in market efficiency and that over the long haul smart money is just more expensive (in terms of fees) than set-it-and-forget it diversified investments or target funds. It's incredibly difficult to beat the market, especially after you're paying out significant fees for managed funds. The Bogleheads have some good things going for them on their low cost Vanguard style funds. The biggest winners in the financial markets are the people collecting fees from churn or setting up the deals which take advantage of less sophisticated/connected players. Buy, Hold and Forget has been shown as a loser as well in this recession. Diversifying and re-balancing however takes advantage of market swings by cashing out winners and buying beaten down stocks. If you take advantages of general market highs and lows (without worrying about strict timing) every few months to re-balance, you buy some protection from crashes in any given sector. One common guideline is to use your age as the percentage of your holdings that are in cash equivalents, rather than stocks. At age 28, at least 28% of my account should be in bonds, real estate, commodities, etc. This should help guide your allocation and re-balancing strategy. Finally, focusing on Growth and Income funds may give you a better shot at above S&P returns, but it's wise to hold a small percentage in the S&P 500 as well. "From http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ , Lots of sensible advisers will tell you to buy index funds, but   importantly, the advice is not simply ""buy index funds.""   There are at least two other critical details: 1) asset allocation   across multiple well-chosen indexes, maintained through regular   rebalancing, and 2) dollar cost averaging (or,   much-more-complex-but-probably-slightly-better, value averaging). The   advice is not to take your single lump sum and buy and hold a   cap-weighted index forever. The advice is an investment   discipline which involves action over time, and an initial   choice among indexes. An index-fund-based   strategy is not completely passive, it involves some active risk   control through rebalancing and averaging. If you'd held a balanced portfolio over the last ten years and rebalanced, and even better if you'd dollar cost averaged, you'd have done fine. Your reaction to the last 10 years incidentally is why I don't believe an almost-all-stocks allocation makes sense for most people even if they're pretty young. More detail in this answer: How would bonds fare if interest rates rose? I think some index fund advocacy and books do people a disservice by focusing too much on the extra cost of active management and why index funds are a good deal.  That point is true, but for most investors, asset allocation, rebalancing, and ""autopilotness"" of their setup are more important to outcome than the expense ratio." Dogma always disappoints.  The notion that an index fund is the end-all, be-all for investing because the expense ratios are low is a flawed one. I don't concern myself with cost as an independent factor -- I look for the best value.  Bogle's dogma lines up with his business, so you need to factor that in as well. Vendors of any product spend alot of time and money convincing you that unique attributes of their product are the most important thing in the world.  Pre-crash, the dogmatics among us were bleating about how Fixed-date Retirement Funds were the new paradigm. Where did they go? Excellent Question!  I agree with other repliers but there are some uneasy things with index funds. Since your view is death, I will take extremely pessimist view things that may cause it (very big may): I know warnings about stock-picking but, in imperfect world, the above things tend to happen. But to be honest, they feel too much paranoia. Better to keep things simple with good diversification and rebalancing when people live in euphoria/death. You may like Bogleheads.org. I think you can do better than the straight indexes. For instance Vanguard's High Yield Tax Exempt Fund has made 4.19% over the past 5 years. The S&P 500 Index has lost -2.25% in the same period. I think good mutual funds will continue to outperform the markets because you have skilled managers taking care of your money.  The index is just a bet on the whole market.  That said, whatever you do, you should diversify. List of Vanguard Funds "One alternative to bogleheadism is the permanent portfolio concept (do NOT buy the mutual fund behind this idea as you can easily obtain access to a low cost money market fund, stock index fund, and bond fund and significantly reduce the overall cost).  It doesn't have the huge booms that stock plans do, but it also doesn't have the crushing blows either.  One thing some advisers mention is success is more about what you can stick to than what ""traditionally"" makes sense, as you may not be able to stick to what traditionally makes sense (all people differ). This is an excellent pro and con critique of the permanent portfolio (read the whole thing) that does highlight some of the concerns with it, especially the big one: how well will it do in a world of high interest rates?  Assuming we ever see a world of high interest rates, it may not provide a great return. The authors make the assumption that interest rates will be rising in the future, thus the permanent portfolio is riskier than a traditional 60/40.  As we're seeing in Europe, I think we're headed for a world of negative interest rates - something in the past most advisers have thought was very unlikely.  I don't know if we'll see interest rates above 6% in my lifetime and if I live as long as my father, that's a good 60+ years ahead. (I realize people will think this is crazy to write, but consider that people are willing to pay governments money to hold their cash - that's how crazy our world is and I don't see this changing.)"
If you have just started an IRA (presumably with a contribution for 2012),  you likely have $5000 in it, or $10,000 if you made a full contribution for  2013 as well. At this time, I would recommend putting it all in a  single low-cost mutual fund. Typically, mutual funds that track an index such as the S&P 500 Index have lower costs (annual expense fees) than actively managed funds, and most investment companies offer such mutual funds, with Fidelity, Vanguard, Schwab, to name a few, having very low expenses even among index funds. Later, when you have more money in the account, you can consider diversifying into more funds, buying stocks and bonds, investing in ETFs, etc. Incidentally, if you are just starting out and your Roth IRA is essentially your first investment experience, be aware that you do not need a brokerage account for your Roth IRA until you have more money in the account to invest and specifically want to buy individual stocks and bonds instead of just mutual funds. If you opened a brokerage account for your Roth IRA, close it and  transfer the Roth IRA to your choice of mutual fund company; else you will be paying annual fees to the brokerage for maintaining your account, inactivity fees since you won't be doing any trading, etc. The easiest way to do this is to go to the mutual fund company web site and tell them that you want to transfer your IRA to them (not roll over your IRA to them) and they will take care of all the paper work and collecting your money from the brokerage (ditto if your Roth IRA is with a bank or another mutual fund company). Then close your brokerage account. The S&P500 is an index, not an investment by itself.  The index lists a large number of stocks, and the value of the index is the price of all the stocks added together. If you want to make an investment that tracks the S&P500, you could buy some shares of each stock in the index, in the same proportions as the index.  This, however, is impractical for just about everyone. Index mutual funds provide an easy way to make this investment.  SPY is an ETF (exchange-traded mutual fund) that does the same thing. An index CFD (contract for difference) is not the same as an index mutual fund.  There are a number of differences between investing in a security fund and investing in a CFD, and CFDs are not available everywhere. An index fund is just copying the definition of an index. The group that defines the index determines how to weight the different parts of the index. The index fund just makes sure they invest the same way the index creator wants.  Think of a non-investment scenario. A teacher can grade tests, quizzes, homework, in-class assignments, research papers. They decide how much weight to give each category and how much weight to give each part of each category. when a student wants to see how they are doing they take the information in the syllabus, and generate a few formulas in a spreadsheet to calculate their current grade. They can also calculate what they need to get on the final exam to get the grade they want. This is just a pedestrian (my) opinion: Yes, It is wise to invest in bond funds even in a low interest environment. Check out the lazy man's portfolio on bogleheads. The reason is: "Don't compare investing with a roll of the dice, compare it with blackjack and the decision to stand or hit, or put more money on the table (double down or increase bet size) , based on an assessment of the state of the table and history.  A naive strategy of say ""always hitting to 16"" isn't as awful as randomly hitting and standing (which, from time to to time will draw to 21 fair and square) , but there's a basic strategy that gets close to 50% and by increasing or decreasing bet based on counting face cards can get into positive expectations. Randomly buying and selling stock is randomly hitting.  Buying a market index fund is like always hitting to 16.  Determining an asset allocation strategy and periodically rebalancing is basic strategy.  Adjusting allocations based on business cycle and economic indicators is turning skill into advantage." "The goldbug crowd over on ZeroHedge's comments seem fond of reminding everyone that, while they might have bought and owned some gold in the past, they don't have it any more because they actually lost it all in a lake in ""a tragic boating accident"".  And who's going to prove otherwise? For that group, who are convinced cash (""fiat paper"") will at some point be worthless, the stockmarket will evaporate, the highest grade bonds will default and bank accounts and other personal assets will be subject to confiscation and ""bail in""... general bug-out apocalypse in other words... having a ""secret stash"" of high-value physical assets is obviously quite important and reassuring and presumably totally ""worth it""." Exactly - it is as if the Vulture Funds do not get that when you invest in something, it might just go to zero.  Well, I suppose that might be for us common investors, but not for all.  Bailouts, and this sort of thing is what to expect for those on the other side of the apartheid wall. Not a day goes by that someone isn't forecasting a collapse or meteoric rise. Have you read Ravi Batra's The Great Depression of 1990? The '90s went on to return an amazing 18.3%/yr compound growth rate for the decade. (The book sells for just over $3 with free Amazon shipping.) In 1987, Elaine Garzarelli predicted the crash. But went years after to produce unremarkable results. Me? I saw that 1987 was up 5% or so year on year (in hindsight , of course), and by just staying invested, I added deposits throughout the year, and saw that 5% return. What crash? Looking back now, it was a tiny blip. You need to be diversified in a way that one segment of the market falling won't ruin you. If you think the world is ending, you should make peace with your loved ones and your God, no investment advice will be of any value. (Nor will gold for that matter.)