Either way we slice it, it likely boils down to a statement from Powell that suggests growth risks a...
The Fundamental Alternative to Indexing
05/21/2007 12:00 am EST
Sheldon Jacobs, founder and contributing editor of The No-Load Fund Investor, advised attendees at last week’s Las Vegas Money Show to explore fundamental index funds instead of plain-vanilla indexing.
I’ve been an advocate of index funds for many years and they’ve been a godsend for most people, particularly back in the 1980s and 1990s. Most index funds are capitalization-weighted, [such as] the Standard & Poor’s 500.
Capitalization-weighted means you take the price of the stock times the number of shares outstanding. That means a high-priced stock will have a higher weight in the index than a low-priced stock. There are certain advantages to this, one of them being you have a perfect representation of the market, and academics like that. But this capitalization-weighting suffers from a very inherent flaw that bothered me for years: It overweights overvalued stocks and underweights undervalued stocks, which means it will do very well in a secular bull market and not very well in a bear market.
In the 1990s the more a stock went up the more people liked it, so it was great to overweight, but today it’s not. Let’s take two stocks that are in the S&P 500—Google and General Motors. By market value, Google is 0.81% of all of the 500 stocks. General Motors, because it has a low price, has a weighting in the S&P 500 of 0.14%.
If you were to put more money into an S&P 500 fund, you would have to put $8.25 into Google for every dollar you put in to General Motors. Do you really want to do that? Google’s got a P/E of 47x.
There’s even a better method now. It’s called fundamental indexing. The leader in this field is called Research Affiliates, [and] they use four separate metrics to do this: book value, cash flow, sales, and dividends, which determine their weightings. There’s been a lot of research done on this and there is a body of information that says a fundamentally-weighted fund will do 2% a year better than a [traditional index fund], and over a period of years that could mean big bucks.
The fund that does this I recommend is called the Powershares FTSE RAFI 1000 (NYSE: PRF). It’s doing better than the S&P 500. Expense ratio is 0.6%, a little high for an index fund though certainly better than any actively managed fund.
If you own an S&P 500 index fund, I would sell it and buy PRF and replace it dollar for dollar. This can be used as a core holding the same way an S&P 500 fund can be used as a core holding. (It closed at $62.79 Friday, near its all-time high—Editor.)
There is a down side—maybe. It does have a value tilt to it—mid or large cap value. You are going to find a few periods where if growth is beating the pants off value, this fund will lag the 500 slightly. I don’t think that’s a problem.
Related Articles on MARKETS
Headline risks are lurking around every corner like golden lanceheads on Ilha da Queimada Grande. If...
Stocks are mostly steady to start the Tuesday morning and the indexes remain near their all-time hig...
Bill Baruch, president and founder of Blue Line Futures, previews E-mini S&P, Gold, Crude, and T...