≡ Menu

How index trackers work – index funds explained

Index trackers – also known as index funds – are the investment vehicle of choice for passive investors.

Why? Because index trackers provide a low-cost way to build a diversified portfolio that will outperform the average active investor.

Index trackers come highly recommended by some of the biggest names in investing.

Yale’s famed endowment fund manager, David Swenson, neatly summed up the advantages of trackers:

“With all assets, I recommend that people invest in index funds because they’re transparent, understandable, and low cost.”

Even Warren ‘Gazillionaire’ Buffett says index funds are the best investment vehicles for most people.

Safety in numbers

Like other funds, tracker funds enable lots of investors to club together to increase their buying power. They collectively buy shares or other assets across many more companies than any individual could.

For example, index trackers make it possible to invest in all the world’s stock markets via just one global tracker fund.

Index trackers can reduce risk and cost

Trackers are therefore a good way for everyday investors to get into the stock market without exposing themselves to the dangers of individual stock-picking.

Risks and costs are reduced thanks to the scale and diversity of the fund.

And while you’ll never beat the market you’re tracking with an index fund, you won’t lag it by much, either.

Indexes in (just a little) detail

Most funds have an aim. The aim of a tracker fund is to reproduce the returns of a specific market index.

An index is a basket of securities (such as shares or bonds) that is used to represent a particular segment of the market.

Famous indices that you’ll have heard of on the news include the:

  • FTSE 100
  • Dow Jones Industrial Average
  • Nikkei 225

An index is rather like a scoreboard or league table. It provides a systematic way of measuring how a particular market is performing.

There are many weird and wonderful indices out there, from the All-Peru index to the Volatility Arbitrage index.

But virtually all of us only need to concern ourselves with the very biggest ones.

You need to decide:

  • The market you want to track (for instance UK domestic equity).
  • Which indices track that market, and how the indices differ.

You can then make an informed choice about which tracker to go for.

For example, global equities are covered by a number of indices. Some of the most popular are the MSCI World and the FTSE Global All Cap.

UK equity is similarly covered by a number of indices. The two most popular are the FTSE 100 and the FTSE All-Share:

  • The FTSE 100 tracks the 100 largest listed UK firms, and covers nearly 90% of the market 1.
  • The FTSE All-Share covers more than 98% of the market, by bundling together the FTSE 100, FTSE 250 and FTSE Small Cap indices.

If you wanted the most diversified UK index, you’d pick the All-Share.

However we believe that a global index fund should be at the heart of most UK investors’ portfolios. That’s because with this single fund your money is diversified into thousands of companies from across the world.

You can find out which index a tracker mimics by reading its fund factsheet or web page.

Whose indices are they, anyway?

Indices are created and managed by private companies such as FTSE Russell and MSCI.

These outfits define markets slightly differently, which is why their respective ‘global trackers’, for example, won’t own exactly the same companies.

You can even invest in funds that track (supposedly) more ethical versions of their indices, tweaked to reduce exposure to, say, oil and gas companies or cigarette makers.

However because these niche indices differ from the broader markets, you can expect to earn a slightly different return when you go down this route – for better or worse.

Some firms are bigger than others

One thing that surprises new passive investors is that an index typically doesn’t give every company an equal weighting.

Instead, most indices are weighted by market capitalisation – or ‘market cap’.

The bigger a company’s market cap, the larger its place in the index.

Let’s say we have an index containing just three firms. If Company A is worth £700 billion, Company B £200 billion, and Company C £100 billion, then:

  • 70% of your tracker would be invested in Company A
  • 20% in Company B
  • 10% in Company C

As share prices rise and fall, those weightings then change automatically. A company whose value doubles becomes a bigger part of the index. One whose fortunes decline occupies less space.

Market-cap weighting reduces trading, which helps keep costs down. It also reflects where investors have collectively put their money – a wisdom of crowds approach that typically does better than striving to outsmart the market.

The downside is that today’s biggest firms dominate even the broadest trackers.

At the time of writing, a global equity index is heavily weighted to US technology giants, simply because they account for such a large share of the world’s listed stock market.

Not everyone is comfortable with this level of concentration, fretting that it leaves them exposed to the fortunes of a handful of super-sized companies.

It’s worth mentioning though that if tomorrow’s winners emerge from elsewhere in the market, then the index will gradually adjust to reflect that, too.

Gain with less pain

A tracker’s job is to deliver the return of its index.

It usually does this by holding stocks (or other assets) in proportion to their presence in the index.

Some trackers will hold the lot, some only a sample, and yet others will replicate index returns using more complicated financial products.

These differences in methodology help explain tracking error – the extent to which a tracker fails to accurately track its index in any particular year.

Other drivers of index fund performance include the fees they charge investors and the fund provider’s costs of running the fund and buying and selling assets.

Tiny differences can see two funds that track the same index delivering slightly different returns over time – although rarely by enough to sweat the difference.

How trackers win by being average

The key point is that trackers don’t try to pick the winners. They don’t market time.

They just plod along tracking the index, handing over the returns due from the performance of its component securities.

By its very nature, a tracker fund will never hit three cherries on the fruit machine. It will never turn in a stellar index-trouncing result.

Its task is just to replicate the index.

In fact, a tracker will usually undershoot its benchmark, due to fund costs.

But a tracker’s limited ambition makes it cheap to run. And it’s because they are cheap that most trackers outperform expensive active funds in the long run.

Types of trackers

There are two main types of tracker funds:

  • Index funds – The majority of these are now structured as Open Ended Investment Companies (OEIC), while a few are unit trusts. The US equivalent is called a mutual fund.
  • Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) – These are basically index funds wrapped up in a product quoted on the stock market, which you buy and sell like other shares. Buying ETFs can therefore incur higher trading costs, though that’s less of an issue these days with low-cost platforms. Also there is a far greater choice of ETFs than index funds. An ETF may be the only way to get exposure to some markets.

You can read more about the different types of tracker in our archives.

We also keep a watching eye on the lowest-cost index funds for UK investors.

Take it steady,

The Accumulator

p.s. This article on index trackers has been updated after ten years hard labour. Comments below are preserved for posterity but may be out-of-date. Check the date!

  1. In terms of the total market capitalisation[]
{ 21 comments… add one }
  • 1 oldie November 17, 2015, 2:59 pm

    Hi

    Some ETFs are domiciled outside the UK and are not covered by the UK’s FSCS. Are they covered by other equivalent arrangements?
    Exactly what risks are being are involved?

    Thanks.

  • 2 The Investor November 17, 2015, 3:17 pm

    @Oldie — It’s a thorny issue. See this article: http://monevator.com/investor-compensation-scheme/

  • 3 magneto November 17, 2015, 5:00 pm

    Most investors assume that Vanguard is totally safe for a one stop global fund. Am inclined to this view also, that if anyone is trustworthy then it is Vanguard. But can we say “totally”?
    Have been adding to VWRL lately and pencilled in to add more.
    However re-watching ‘Inside Job’ the other day and it occurs that where huge amounts of money and frail humans (esp men), are involved things sometimes do go most unexpectedly wrong, and others suffer.
    Am not saying that Vanguard will go off the rails (most unlikely due to structure), but usually when depositing our money we take care to diversify (eggs and baskets).
    So maybe will continue to spread funds among managers in the name of prudence.

  • 4 The Rhino November 17, 2015, 5:43 pm

    @magneto – i have worries in exactly this area – I really want a few more competitive life strategy type funds to appear in the market so i can diversify away from vanguard.

  • 5 polpo November 17, 2015, 7:22 pm

    @magneto – me too. I make a allocation to 1) Vanguard All World ETF and 2) iShares MSCI World plus iShares Emerging Markets (iShares World is being developed market only). 90%/10% in the case of (2)

    Risk of a Vanguard melt down seem remote but one would feel a real twit if something went wrong – c/f monevator advice about ‘assuming every investment can fail you’

  • 6 Mr and Mrs Geek November 18, 2015, 1:38 pm

    Hi guys,
    From my understanding all the fund management institutions (i.e. Vanguard) are mandated to use a trustee where the trustee is the company that holds the fund’s underlying assets in trust. So even Vanguard or your broker vanishes the trustee is still there. But please correct if I’m wrong!

    For alternative options to Vanguard Lifestrategy take a look at Blackrock Consensus or L&G Multi Index or HSBC World Index Portfolios but all of them are more expensive then Vanguard 😐

  • 7 Jonny November 18, 2015, 2:10 pm

    @magneto, @the rhine, @polpo

    You can add me to the list of worriers too!

    I’d say I’m stuck in analysis paralysis mode, but the honest truth is I can’t bear to start the pre-research mode (i.e. investigation suitable, simple, straightforward alternatives) at the moment, let alone analysing what I find. In fact it’s been on “this weeks” to-do list since April!

  • 8 2lazy November 18, 2015, 7:33 pm
  • 9 Mike November 18, 2015, 8:30 pm

    You say that investment trust trackers are pricier and not worth worrying about, but if you can buy say AUKT (which has OCF 0.32%) at a 5% discount (which is the 12m month average discount per hl.co.uk) wouldn’t that be worth considering?

  • 10 David November 19, 2015, 9:20 am

    I couldn’t bring myself to invest in indices but your articles are so convincing that I will definitely do that someday 🙂

  • 11 The Investor November 19, 2015, 10:04 am

    @Mike — I’m not the author (that’s my co-blogger The Accumulator) but I’d say while it *might* be worth considering if you’re an investing nerd (like me! 🙂 ) what’s the point for the average passive investor? They are not likely to monitor the discount closing, so won’t benefit from any modest re-rating there, and at the same time they expose themselves to the extra *risk* of the discount widening, reducing the value of their holdings, especially at a time of instability in the market like 2008-2009, due to the closed-end nature of the fund.

    Extra risk for negligible/uncertain extra reward that doesn’t fit into an investing strategy isn’t really part of the passive investing playbook.

    You can track the UK All-Share via a Vanguard tracker with an OCF of just 0.08% or if you want similar instant liquidity to AUKT it has a FTSE 100 tracking ETF with an OCF of 0.09%. (Source: Vanguard), which makes that 0.32% OCF for AUKT look positively outrageous. 😉

  • 12 oldie November 19, 2015, 10:37 am

    Am I right in thinking that IT’s are sometimes considered as a way of not having to pay the platform charges that go with UT/OEIC trackers ?

  • 13 The Rhino November 19, 2015, 11:00 am

    @oldie you are right that ITs don’t tend to attract platform charges, but neither do ETFs.

  • 14 The Accumulator November 19, 2015, 5:52 pm

    Depends on platform, but they do attract stamp duty and dealing fees

  • 15 Mike November 19, 2015, 8:55 pm

    Thanks TI. That’s certainly one way of looking at re profiting from the discount reversing. However that wasn’t my thinking when I bought AUKT. If you buy say £950 of AUKT with a 5% disccount then you’ll get £1000 of underlying assets. Now with a 0.32% OCF the manager will take £3.2 per year from the income the fund produces. But there’s also £50 worth of assets that are producing dividends in the fund that you get essentially for free. Let’s assume a 3.5% dividend yield for all-share then the £50 will produce £1.75 per year. So now the charge is £1.45 (£3.2 less £1.75) which is c0.15%. If you plan on holding for say 20 years then the discount widening shouldn’t be a problem – plus there’s the upside of the discount narrowing so can sell and move to a cheaper fund.

    But do agree that Vanguard is a better bet and cheaper. I was trying to move some funds away from Vanguard as I realised that I was starting to accumulate too much with one company. Plus while ETFs are great there’s something I find unsettling about them being Irish domiciled (especially if we come out the EU) so don’t want a too much tied up with them.

    Mike

  • 16 Ewan November 21, 2015, 4:10 pm

    Hello, I’m a long time reader, first time commentator. First of all, thanks for the blog!

    I was wondering if anyone knows how tracker funds, like the Vanguard ones, decide to vote – e.g. at an EGM to approve a merger? Do they even vote? Does this have implications on quorums? Are non-votes ever counted to take some default value (so turn out is always 100%)?

    FYI I’m not asking for any specific reason – I just got curious after reading about the Willis / Towers Watson merger where there were some significant Towers’ shareholders urging others to decline the (first) proposal and I’m don’t know how Vanguard (or similar) would respond in this situation.

  • 17 The rhino November 22, 2015, 12:16 pm

    Why is it that the finance industry habitually charges as a % of assets under management when even the utter charlatans that represent the letting agencies only charge a % of the income? It makes no sense.

  • 18 Ewan November 22, 2015, 4:46 pm

    @The rhino: I’m not speaking with any authority but…

    Expressing charges as a % of assets under management is convenient for calculations and comparisons, so regardless of how the charges are calculated, it would make sense to express them as a %.

    I’m not convinced that charges are calculated as a % of assets under management. I would guess that competition in the fund market is high enough so that charges are fair.

    More widely, it’s not the case that all brokers charge a % of assets held, there are fixed fee brokers.

  • 19 The rhino November 22, 2015, 7:58 pm

    @ewan I think we’re at cross purposes here.

    My point is even letting agents who can and will charge for everything under the sun still wouldn’t try taking a % of the value of the property as their fee. Whereas this is exactly what every fund, etf and IT does (I’m not talking about the brokers though some of them have a go at it too).

    Is it just a quirk of fate that this has become defacto acceptable way of charging people. It just seems like a bad deal for the people. All upside no downside for the fund manager.

    It’s crazy. Totally crazy. No punter in their right mind should accept such terms yet they are absolutely standard across the industry

  • 20 Ewan November 22, 2015, 9:10 pm

    But the way in which they present their charges (i.e. % of fund value) is not necessarily how they determine what the charges are.

    The funds incur expenses and the investors need to pay for them. The % charge will be based with the knowledge of what the $ cost is and what the fund value is.

    It’s only a bad deal (on average) if the overall expense charge for the fund is higher than what the fund manger would be willing to accept. e.g. if a fund grew in value faster than their expenses and they didn’t reduce the % charge.

    However, funds do reduce their % charges (e.g. Vanguard did in August 2014) so I don’t buy it that the charge is determined as a % of fund value, even though they are always expressed as a % of fund value.

    But no matter how the charges are determined, if there is strong competition between fund providers then the charge will be ‘fair’ for the total fund.

    There is downside for the fund manager – if they set the % charge based on expected fund value and the fund doesn’t meet expectations then their actual income will be lower than expected.

    There is another argument about how the total fund charge should be distributed among investors. i.e. by % of value. The fairness of this expense allocation is a different issue to the fairness of the overall expense charge. Any allocation system will be benefit some members more than others, but it can still be a good deal for everyone – as long as everyone covers their own variable costs.

  • 21 The rhino November 22, 2015, 9:41 pm

    Hmm maybe, maybe not

    I think a tiny vanguard like fee of 0.09% for a tracker is prob fair do s

    However any active fund should really only charge a % of income and growth achieved. A bit like what the tax man does. No income, no growth then no fee.

    Or even better. Lets bring back some buffet style fees!

    https://www.scmessina.com/2015/03/what-was-the-fee-structure-of-warren-buffetts-first-investment-partnership-started-in-1956/

Leave a Comment