≡ Menu

We’ve reached the final post in our mini-series comparing ETFs and index funds, so it’s appropriate to consider which tracker makes ongoing maintenance such as dividend reinvestment in your portfolio less painful.

And it’s fair to say that index funds win out over ETFs when it comes to important investor duties like rebalancing and reinvesting.

Both tasks are easier to perform with index funds than with ETFs.

Trading ETFs in small amounts to rebalance your portfolio comes a cropper due to the high dealing fee factor for ETFs.

Index funds that don’t attract dealing fees neatly sidestep any such worries.

Dividend reinvestment made easy

There’s more! Most index funds are available in accumulation and income varieties. Accumulation units automatically reinvest your dividends back into the fund, whereas income units hand them over to you.

Far fewer ETFs are available in dividend reinvestment flavour1. As a result, you will incur costs on reinvesting the dividends from your ETFs.

What’s more, if your dividends are paid out as cash then you must also confront the demon temptation of not reinvesting your dividends at all, but instead spending them on having a good time!

You decide what matters most for you

This table below shows the results of our ETF versus index fund face-off. Click the links to read any articles you missed:

ETFs Index funds
Simplicity Winner
Costs Winner
Tracking error Draw Draw
Choice Winner
Control Winner
Reinvestment Winner

Only you can know how important each of these factors is in your decision to choose between index funds or ETFs – or indeed to choose a mix of fund types.

I’d suggest you pick what works for you. The differences between the two tracker types are in some cases fairly technical but, on a personal level, I find index funds to be much more straightforward.

Plus I draw a good deal of comfort from their long, scandal-free track record!

Take it steady,

The Accumulator

  1. Reinvesting ETFs are termed as capitalising in ETF circles []
{ 3 comments }

You can trade ETFs more easily than index funds

For this latest article in our series of bite-sized battles pitting ETFs against index funds, we’ll look at how it’s easier to trade ETFs.

We’ve already compared ETFs1 against index funds on the basis of:

ETFs have so far only landed an outright victory when it comes to choice.

But the ability to trade ETFs at a moment’s notice at an exact, quoted price – and to instantly convert your ETF holdings to cash, if you want to – gives them the edge when it comes to hands-on control, too.

Whether such trading is useful for passive investors is another matter entirely!

ETFs put you in control

We’ve seen that for a simple life you should buy index funds, not ETFs.

But the counter-punch to this simplicity is that index funds are a blunt instrument in comparison to ETFs:

  • You can buy and sell ETFs in real-time on any trading day.
  • In contrast, index funds only trade at a single time of the day.
  • You can watch the bid-offer prices of ETFs zig and zag just like any other share that trades on the stock exchange, and buy and sell accordingly.
  • In contrast, with an index fund you’re flying blind. You won’t know what the trading price is until the next valuation point (normally 12pm). Generally prices don’t fluctuate so wildly that this is a major issue but theoretically you have a greater measure of control with an ETF if markets are in a tailspin.1

If maximum trading flexibility matters to you, then ETFs clearly win over index funds.

…but do you really want to trade ETFs?

It’s a passive investing maxim that nothing benefits your investments like neglect.

Ignoring your portfolio for months at at time is better for your psychological well-being. More important however from the perspective of maximising your returns, an attitude of benign neglect also means you’re less likely to be tempted to trade.

All the evidence from researchers suggests that the more the average investor trades, the worse their annual returns. Therefore, the ease with which you can trade ETFs could be considered a flaw in the products as much as a boon, unless you have your psychological biases well under control.

Next: For our final match-up, we’ll return to fees to consider the issue of ongoing investing costs. Subscribe to ensure you get this last installment!

Take it steady,

The Accumulator

  1. I say theoretically because previously during distressed market conditions the prices of a select number of ETFs have decoupled significantly from their true worth (as measured by NAV). []
{ 0 comments }

The Iron Lady: Trailer of the Margaret Thatcher biopic

I suspect The Iron Lady – a biopic of Margaret Thatcher’s rise and fall – will be as divisive as her career, even among Monevator readers (and writers!)

I am a political pariah among my family and most of my friends in thinking the woman did the right thing for Britain, albeit in brutal fashion at times.

Nobody under 30 can imagine how economically crippled this country was in the 1970s, when it was known as the sick man of Europe (though looking at Italy today might give you a clue). Bodies of the dead piled up in the streets was perhaps the most famous incarnation of a Britain that was truly bust.

Thatcher didn’t just confront the ability of organised Unions to cripple the country on a whim – maybe motivated by their own ultra-leftist ideals as much as to achieve anything for members.

Ironically, she also did more for social mobility than Labour achieved in its decade in power (or that Cameron and Co will begin to achieve today) by freeing up enterprise and working against the clubbable nature of 1970s corporate Britain.

Countries like France and Germany can still only look on enviously at our entrepreneuralism – or their young can move here, of course.

Margaret Thatcher the milk snatcher

On the other hand, I’d agree insufficient attention was given to the likely impact of shock and awe Thatcherism on industrial and mining communities in, for example, Wales and the North of England.

Proud traditions in those areas had served Britain well for generations, and after decades of difficult, dangerous work they deserved more notice than they got from London-centric, market-obsessed Whitehall.

Remember, these were working communities then, not the early retirement homes for the 40-year old perma-jobless that some have now become.

I’d agree their subsequent marginalisation is partly down to the political element of Thatcherite restructuring, though to some degree it would surely have happened regardless (consider similarly moribund industrial areas of the US).

Even in London – where the right wing’s laissez-faire attitude towards free financial markets in the 1980s was eventually embraced by Labour – the so-called Big Bang of deregulation and the subsequent banking bonanza helped blow up the economic system a quarter of a century later.

So her record is mixed, but ultimately I admire Margaret Thatcher and her achievements, and I think Britain is better for them. I miss the politics of conviction, too – on both sides of the political spectrum.

What do you think? Will you be taking popcorn into the cinema to see The Iron Lady come January – or sneaking in a bag of rotten tomatoes?

{ 1 comment }

Weekend reading: Italy pushes me to the tipping point

Weekend reading

Great reading from around the web.

Europe hasn’t bothered me much these past few years – unless you count my terror this summer when I was quizzed by a tussle-haired French waiter in jeans (even scarier than the old-fashioned variety) in a hip Parisian eatery1.

No, I’ve carried on investing despite more prophecies of doom than you’ll find in a Tolkien trilogy.

That’s not to say Europe’s problems aren’t immense. However:

  • I wasn’t surprised by them, because I never supported the Euro. It’s the flaws of the original currency union – not the particulars of any one country – that are ultimately threatening Europe.
  • I believe it’s in Germany’s interest to save the Euro, and that it can do so.
  • I can’t do anything about it, anyway.

But my measured bonhomie towards Europe’s woes was pushed to breaking point this past week.

First Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi turned away the IMF because the restaurants in Rome were full (really). Then he didn’t quit when I bet he’d have to. Next Italian bond yields soared after margin requirements by a key broker were increased – and the ECB at first stood by and did nothing. Finally, numerous ECB officials ruled out intervention by Europe’s Central Bank.

Meanwhile the idea of Greece leaving the Eurozone began to be discussed as a plausible option by the core decision makers. Greece doesn’t matter much – it amounts to 1% of European GDP, and most of its debt has already been written down – but the dangers of precedent setting loomed large.

I was so bothered that I finally sold out of some of my defensives in the trading portion of my portfolio on Tuesday. They are well up over six months and didn’t look likely to go much higher in a surprise rally, and I wanted some cash to buy bargains in a rout.

Happily, however, Europe, the ECB, and me all stepped back from the brink.

Berlusconi got the boot in Italy, austerity measures were approved, and a new technocratic government is on the way. Germany’s big bluff against Greece worked, too – it called off its referendum and it’s getting a wise council of wonks to push through reforms.

Best of all, the ECB stepped back into the bond markets and pulled the Italian 10-year bond rate well under 7% again. Having proved it can do it once, the clamour for it to do so again will surely be irresistible.

On Friday morning I bought back in with the cash I’d raised, roughly equal on the deal and without tax consequences thanks to glorious ISA protection.

I still believe market timing is a mug’s game, incidentally, even though being more active has helped me over the past 3-4 years. Regular meddling looks clever until a big surge one way or the other wipes out the profits you made (after expenses) by fiddling – and that’s assuming you’re even good at it in the short-term, which most people aren’t.

I far prefer to remain invested at all times (though I actively tinker with asset / geography / sector allocation, even in my passive portfolio). My going part-liquid on Tuesday was a measure of how much risk Vs. reward had finally tilted for me.

Now I’m back to a watchful vigilance. While I read as much about Europe as the most avid doomster, I still believe this sort of drama is more likely to yield opportunities for equity investors with a sufficient time horizon. Time will tell.

[continue reading…]

  1. Sorry, there is no other word for this place. []
{ 5 comments }