Q: Jeremy Siegel argues in his new book, "The Future for Investors," that index funds like the S&P 500 or the Wilshire 5000 don't perform...
Q: Jeremy Siegel argues in his new book, “The Future for Investors,” that index funds like the S&P 500 or the Wilshire 5000 don’t perform as well as stocks with low price-earnings ratios and high dividends.
Could you suggest a replacement index fund for the Vanguard Total Market Index fund that would have these characteristics? I know Vanguard has some value funds, but I’m not familiar with an index fund that selects for both low price-earnings ratios and high dividends.
— J.R., Dallas
A: Professor Siegel has a good point — index funds have their limitations. They are, however, much like democracy in a famous Winston Churchill quote: “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.”
Most Read Stories
- I-5’s Uncle Sam: 50 years and still ticked off near Chehalis
- Check out this new drone footage of the Bertha-dug Highway 99 tunnel WATCH
- Sports on TV & radio: Local listings for Seattle games and events
- Republicans going beyond hypocrisy with the national debt | Danny Westneat
- Washington state’s new parental leave law could change workplace for moms — and dads
The recurrent embarrassing fact is that whatever the deficiencies of traditional capitalization-weighted stock indexes like the S&P 500 or the Wilshire 5000, they tend to provide better returns than 70 percent of their managed competitors over long periods of time.
This is due to lower management expenses, lower turnover expenses and greater tax efficiency. It would be foolish to give up an index fund to pursue managed-value investing.
A great deal of research backs Professor Siegel’s assertion that stocks with low price-earnings ratios and high dividends will do better than pure index funds.
That’s the well-known conclusion of the Fama/French research. It’s also the conclusion of well-known investors such as author David Dreman and Robert Rodriquez at FPA Capital.
The question is how to capture the higher returns of value stocks in a low-cost index fund. Unless it is done with an index fund, you are faced with the old problem — higher management expenses, and frequent management failures will eliminate your ability to capture the higher return of value stocks.
Of the 344 mutual funds in the Morningstar database that invest in large value stocks, for instance, only 127 of them did better than the S&P 500 Index over the past 15 years.
The most promising current research with a value tilt comes from Robert Arnott, editor of the Financial Analysts Journal and principal at Research Affiliates in Pasadena, Calif.
His “fundamental indexing” — an index based on dividends, sales and book value rather than simple market capitalization — incorporates a value bias.
It also eliminates the systematic overpurchasing of popular stocks simply because they are popular. Value funds, index or managed, buy stocks with relatively low price-earnings ratios. It isn’t necessary to also screen for high dividends because a high dividend yield and a high P-E ratio are mutually exclusive.
A growth stock with a P-E of 50, for instance, could yield no more than 2 percent even if it paid out all of its earnings.
A value stock with a P-E of 10, on the other hand, could have a yield of 10 percent if it paid out all of its earnings, 5 percent if it paid out half of its earnings.
One reason retired investors should have a particular interest in value investing is that it will increase their dividend income, making it less painful to sit through market declines.
Recently, the 30-day SEC yield on the Vanguard Value Index fund was 2.53 percent. The yield on the Vanguard Index 500 fund was 1.64 percent.
Questions about personal finance and investments may be sent to Scott Burns at The Dallas Morning News, P.O. Box 655237, Dallas, TX 75265; by fax at 214-977-8776; or by e-mail at email@example.com. Questions of general interest will be answered in future columns.