---------------------- Forwarded by Todd Perry/PDX/ECT on 05/01/2001 07:52 AM 
---------------------------
   
	
	
	From:  Glenn Surowiec                           05/01/2001 07:15 AM
	

To: Todd Perry/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:  

Subject: Index Article













Indexers: A Free Ride on Market Efficiency
By Don Luskin 
Special to TheStreet.com
Originally posted at 10:14 AM ET 4/30/01 on RealMoney.com








To: Louis Rukeyser, "Wall $treet Week with Louis Rukeyser" 
Dear Lou, 
Last Friday evening, you inducted John C. Bogle, the founder of Vanguard 
Funds, into the "Wall $treet Week with Louis Rukeyser Hall of Fame." 
You correctly credited Bogle with introducing "the first indexed mutual fund" 
at Vanguard in 1975. All too often, Bogle is credited too broadly with 
introducing the very first index fund. In reality, he was only the first to 
offer index funds directly to the general public in the form of mutual funds. 
The idea of the index fund was born in academia. Many great minds contributed 
to the concept, but first among them are Harry M. Markowitz, Merton Miller 
and William F. Sharpe, who shared the 1990 Nobel Prize in economics for this 
work. 
The first commercial index fund was introduced by Wells Fargo Bank in 1971, 
four years ahead of Vanguard, under the leadership of John McQuown. It was 
created for the Samsonite pension fund's investment portfolio, with an 
initial investment of only $5 million. Today, at least a trillion dollars are 
invested in index funds worldwide, probably twice that. Most of it that is 
managed by banks on behalf of pension funds, university endowments and 
charitable institutions. Mutual funds make up a trivial portion of worldwide 
index-fund investing. 
I used to work at Wells Fargo, starting several years after McQuown and the 
first generation of indexers had already moved on to other things. Even then, 
it used to bug us to see Bogle take all the credit -- at least in the mind of 
the general public -- for inventing index funds. But at the end of the day, 
we were delighted to have him out there winning hearts and minds for us. 
Lou, for Bogle, index funds fit into a larger crusade that you also 
celebrated on your show: the mission of reducing the costs of investing for 
the general public. Index funds naturally lower the costs of investing 
because they eliminate expensive investment managers and traders, and they 
cut transaction costs by reducing the volume of portfolio turnover. 
This is important because costs are the single biggest reason that it's so 
difficult to "beat the market." If you define the market as a comprehensive 
index like the Wilshire Total Market Value Index, then investors -- on 
average -- will always underperform by the amount of their costs. The index 
has no costs whatsoever, but investors have management fees, commissions, 
research expenses, taxes and so on. The market is a closed system, in which 
the winners win at the expense of the losers -- but they both pay costs, so 
it's a negative-sum game. Costs are a leak in the bucket of performance. 
Does that mean that it's impossible to beat the market? The most zealous 
advocates of indexing have claimed just that since 1971. But it isn't true. 
It is possible to beat the market. But it's not possible for everyone to beat 
the market all at the same time. There have to be winners and losers (and 
both pay costs). So that means that it's very, very hard to beat the market. 
But not impossible. 
Does this mean I'm saying that the market isn't efficient? Not at all. 
Beating the market is what makes it efficient! Beating the market means you 
have superior information, and you've taken wealth from people who have 
inferior information. In the process, your superior information gets 
impounded into market prices. And when academics talk about the efficient 
market, they simply mean that prices reflect all of the available 
information. Beating the market is the incentive system for getting that 
information into prices and making the market efficient. 
Indexers are "free-riders" on the process of market efficiency. They rely on 
high-cost investors to go out there and take their chances, trying (and often 
failing) to beat the market, but in the process making market prices 
efficient. The indexers simply buy the whole market at those efficient prices 
and get all of the benefits of all those efforts and costs for next to 
nothing. 
Hmmm ... if we investors who battle it out every day trying to beat the 
market are just keeping the market efficient for indexers, maybe it's we who 
ought to be honored on "Wall $treet Week" -- not Bogle! 
-- Don