Plus everyone knows the S&P is a terrible benchmark because it excludes mid- and small-cap cos.
After watching mine from a far for ~7 years, I've come to accept that one really needs to invest in multiple index funds to get global diversification as well.
Such a terrible fund that it is what almost everyone bases their performance off of.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/16/warren-buffett-slips-but-stil...
> His horse in the race, the Vanguard 500 Index Fund Admiral Shares, which tracks the benchmark S&P 500 index, is up 65.7 percent. That's well ahead of the 21.9 percent average gain for the unnamed five funds of hedge funds chosen by Protege Partners, a New York City money management firm.
So not just an average of hedge funds, but ones specifically selected to out perform by a multi-billion dollar management firm.
I do agree with you that almost no professional can beat the S&P 500, but I think that is due to a variety of factors, including but not limited to the outright difficulty. For example, if you beat the market consistently you still might not become rich. With $100k in starting capital, "merely" beating the S&P 500 by a few percentage points each year (let's say 10% average annual return instead of 7%) will not make you rich in the conventional sense of the word. This prevents many people with the aptitude from investing in the skill development because they could earn a greater living doing other things.
A trader whose insight is primarily responsible for driving that same return on $2B in assets is already very rich or will very quickly become so. Beating the market with that kind of capital requires an entire infrastructure devoted to trading and execution just to make the trades with minimal market movement and signalling, let alone maintaining alpha on it. Not all people capable of beating the market can do so in a manner that is actually worth their own time, because the scale can be astronomically different.
Gazing back into the history of thousands of funds to find a few funds who have beaten the S&P 500 over 25 years is interesting, but is far a guarantee that those funds will beat going forward.
[1]: https://www.amazon.com/Invest-Like-Pro-10-Day-Investing-eboo...
You could do a lot worse than parking it in an index fund, so yeah, that's a good approach :) If you have a 401(k) or other retirement account, it is quite common for those to offer an S&P 500 index fund where you could invest your money. If you want to do it in a taxable brokerage account, you should open an account with Vanguard and buy their Total Stock Market index fund (VTSMX, or VTSAX if you have more than $10,000 to invest).
Then stay the course - if the market tanks 50% the day after you put your money in, don't panic. Wait it out. Your investment horizon here is at the very least 10 years.
But that's the quick, the-best-time-to-invest-is-tomorrow-so-just-do-it answer.
There are a number of things you should do if you want to learn more about how to invest your money in stocks (and maybe bonds):
0) A good resource to get started quickly is If You Can, by William Bernstein:
https://smile.amazon.com/If-You-Can-Millennials-Slowly-ebook...
But you can skip it if you want to dive deeper with the stuff that follows.
1) Learn about what investing in the stock market means, what's the nature of it and what to expect from it. I have two recommendations here:
1.1) jlcollinsnh's Stock Series: http://jlcollinsnh.com/stock-series/ He recently released a book (The Simple Path to Wealth) which is supposedly a better-edited version of the Stock Series. He's a rather optimistic guy, but what he says is not wrong. He stays away from investing in non-US markets, which is not the most common position among indexers.
1.2) A Random Walk Down Wall Street, by Burton Malkiel. It's an amazing book that everyone should read if they want to learn about the stock market. Many people recommend Bogle's books (he's the father of index investing), but I find them incredibly tedious to read.
2) Learn about the different investment accounts available to you - 401(k)/403(b)/457(b)s, IRAs, HSAs, taxable brokerage accounts. Each one receives different tax treatment and you should be familiar with that in order to avoid "tax drag" i.e. taxes slowing down the growth of your investments.
3) Another resource I highly recommend is the Bogleheads wiki: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Main_Page. In particular, check out the following pages:
https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Bogleheads%C2%AE_investing_s...
https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Three-fund_portfolio
https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Tax-efficient_fund_placement
4) Don't obsess about it once you get started. After you've learned a few things it's tempting to start "tweaking" your investments here and there, but if you do that often you do yourself more harm than good. Invest your money then go have some fun :)
The criteria for inclusion in the CRSP index specify "a minimum total market capitalization of more than $10 million with a float that more than 10 percent of the total shares outstanding". So there is sub-micro stuff 'beneath' the index that's not included due to the $10M minimum, and others that aren't included because of the float requirement. Do you care? Probably not, but you might.
Also, I've periodically heard arguments against market-cap weighting, which is what indexes do (this is probably one of those "downsides of indexing" arguments). If you are not careful, with a couple of index funds you can end up really exposed to a handful of very large, and therefore highly-weighted, blue chips. But I can't think of another way of weighting within a whole-market index that would make sense.
The other thing that comes up a lot, mostly in tech circles, is that index funds (of course) don't give you exposure to the private market, and it seems that more and more tech companies are waiting a long time until they go public, such that at any given time a lot of growth is happening where most investors can't get in on it. The argument is that, if you are financially qualified, there are more opportunities out there for qualified/accredited investors on the private market. I don't personally agree with this if you're looking for an investment rather than a job as an investor, but you'll sometimes hear the argument get made.
If the total market is outperforming S&P 500, that means the companies not in S&P 500 perform better overall, so giving them greater weight than suggested by their relative market cap would have been beneficial.
But that's not what a lot of index investors do. Indexers enjoy adding tilts to their portfolios. So some people will buy value funds, others will buy small cap funds, and yet others will buy small value funds. There are people who overweight certain sectors, like REITs or utilities. There are those who invest in international index funds (with all their variations) and those who don't. So there's a huge number of combinations you can think of when it comes to indexing.
Now, with people indexing like that, there would still be market liquidity. Maybe not as much as when there are single stocks being actively traded, but on any given day there will be people buying into different indexes, selling shares, or rebalancing.
Valuation would become troublesome though, but at least people would still get some return from dividends.