It already is "open sourced". Vanguard precisely discloses what's in each of their funds already [0].
The issue with independent investors perfectly replicating the securities underlying the index funds is that the vast majority of investors simply don't have enough capital to replicate the underlying components of the fund. Meaning, the typical investment amount of a randomly chosen investor cannot buy enough shares in proportion to each other to be as diversified as a massive $100+ billion fund. That's before discussing the issues with maintaining a balanced portfolio.
> Where each investor owns their portfolio outright and adjustments to the portfolio are made automatically by a free index manager bot that runs the simple algorithm an index fund manager like Vanguard would.
If you had enough capital and trusted such a bot enough, it's not hard. But the vast majority of people will never have enough capital.
[0]: See about 40% of the way through this PDF for the securities behind Vanguard's Total Stock Market Index Fund: https://personal.vanguard.com/funds/reports/q850.pdf?2210151...
Given $1000 to invest, I can't fathom trying to individually own an average of $2 worth of each of 500 companies. And that doesn't even begin to cover it. Because the S&P 500 is market cap weighted, you would need to own $45.70 of AAPL, the top company. I don't know what the 500th stock is, but you'd probably need to own about $0.10 of it.
Even if trades themselves are "free", you still need to pay something like $0.13 per trade in SEC fees. So you are paying about a 100% commission on each of the smallest stocks you buy. And then another 100% commission when those stocks fall out of the index and you sell.
Just buy SPY. There are many good reasons that it has grown to $307 billion in net assets.
As far as I can tell, this is a fairly minor advantage, and if I wasn't using a robo-advisor, i certainly wouldn't be managing the basket directly just for this ability.
Also each investor already owns their portfolio outright... it is simply housed at the investment company. There is an absolute avalanche of regulation making that not just desirable but necessary. To remove a brokerage house from this equation would first require the complete and utter destruction of the global economic system (highly unlikely).
Every investor has the ability to choose funds crafted based on moral guidance or active management, which would spread out voting power more than it currently is. People are by and large not choosing that option at the moment.
If absolute rebalancing was required in an S&P 500 index fund, there would not be enough liquidity in the market for some of the smaller of the 500.
It’s all been fine and well during a bull market, but a concern is that “index” funds have huge amounts of synthetic holdings that are untested in a rout.
All that being said, I’m optimistic someone can come along and find a way to shake the industry up. The status quo is great for the investment industry and pretty shit for everyone else. Tale as old as time.
Handling stocks when they move in and of the index without spiking the price is a finely calibrated, high skill trading desk action.
Roboadvisors do actually offer this if you have enough money. The only advantage AFAIK is being able to tax loss harvest the greater volatility from individual securities.
And this has already been invented. It is called hub-and-spoke, you generally see this with small CTAs and the like where there is a central portfolio with trades mirrored into separate accounts...it works but it is unnecessary, and costly. Another example of is are those awful portfolio mirroring services (eToro is one I think).
Btw, the thing that you are saying is "free" is where all the cost is. Yes, it would be great if everything was just "free" and people would do things for me for no money...but that isn't realistic. Some companies do just provide the "investment" side without all the low-level trading/account management/customer-facing stuff but it usually isn't attractive to do so for individual investors...this is basically what the big pension fund consultants do.
Marketing to individual investors is utterly hellish. It is expensive and the money you obtain is usually pretty worthless. If you are actually have investment talent, it is a terrible financial decision. You can spend hours pitching for pocket change with retail investors or you can make the same in a few seconds with an institution.
A lot of the issues that were brought up have to do with fees associated with purchasing all the stocks and the fact that you would have to buy very small fractional shares. Certainly big issues today but they don't sound like showstopper problems to me.
And to the folks criticizing my lazy use of the term "open source" - I apologize. I should know better using that phrase on hacker news!
To clarify: clearly the market weighted index process is a well known and very simple algorithm. What I meant by "open source" was a tool that can employ that market weighting process and handle all of the financial transactions necessary to execute all of the trades.
But fractional share ownership is not widely popular and would require an aggregator anyway.
I've heard AI trading has done very poorly as the system isn't predictable, it's people making decisions in ways which can become self fulfilling prophesies.
Algorithms when distributed would also fall victim to the fastest person benefiting the most
They invest in companies that make up an index. When a company enters the index they buy units in that company, when a company leaves the index they sell those units.
What if the algorithm Vanguard uses was open sourced and could be self-hosted by independent investors?
Where each investor owns their portfolio outright and adjustments to the portfolio are made automatically by a free index manager bot that runs the simple algorithm an index fund manager like Vanguard would.
Why wouldn't something like that work?