I'm 50+, my money has been moving around these funds since the late 90s. :) I lived as a tech worker through all the 2000-2010 had to offer us, everyone took a beating not just index funds. Besides that point, holding a fund 5 years is normal - it's not like you have to keep a fund longer than 5, make your money and let it go. Roll it over into something else - passive investing does not mean ignoring your investing, you must still tend to your crops from time to time.

Seems to have been not too bad if one had some bonds and rebalanced:

* https://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2010/12/17/the-lost-de...

> Besides that point, holding a fund 5 years is normal - it's not like you have to keep a fund longer than 5, make your money and let it go.

Why would one jump from one fund to another?

> Roll it over into something else - passive investing does not mean ignoring your investing, you must still tend to your crops from time to time.

Tend in what way? I can think of perhaps rebalancing so if you're doing a multi-fund setup with particularly desired asset allocation (bonds, equities: US, world, EM). But if you're using (say) a target date fund, what's there to do?

In Canada we have "all-in-one" ETFs that have particular asset allocations which do rebalancing internally:

* https://milliondollarjourney.com/all-in-one-etfs-battle-vang...

* https://www.savvynewcanadians.com/all-in-one-etf-portfolios-...

Perhaps as one moves closer to retirement then change the bond component, but what is there to otherwise tend?

(General response, just quoting this part) - life is messy, things change around you. My 401k for example (throughout different jobs) bounces around, I've had Schwab, WellsFargo, Vanguard (even some no-brand way back when) who each offer their own strategies; some having severely limited options, some having open playing fields - in 2000 WellsFargo may have offered 1 of 3 choices IIRC. In 2020, they have 30 choices (many are target date funds) - but Schwab is open-ended, do what you want; when your money rolls over from one to the other, it's usually a liquidation and cash transfer (although I've used in-kind for a Roth IRA, worked OK but not perfect - lost some cost basis data, had to repair). I do not get to choose where my 401k is hosted in USA, your company chooses the vendor - this may differ up there in Soviet Canuckistan. :)

Some companies shut down their investment division (USAA -> Victory Capital recently), so what was a no-fee no-load option at that company now costs $$ at another company - for example, I think Vanguard funds are free to trade on Vanguard but really expensive on Schwab, so if you held VFINX and rolled it in-kind over to Schwab it would now cost you more than if you unloaded VFINX and replaced it with SWPPX. Some funds are unique to that company and it's hard to find replacements (USAA's USNQX e.g.) so you might choose to eat cross-vendor fees because it's performance is just that good. Really depends on all the "what's free to trade at this vendor" - it's not always an even playing field, each vendor wants to push their in-house flavour of the index.

Different category but related: company stock - for whatever reason, that's almost always been E-Trade (now Morgan Stanley!) in tech; both Google and Red Hat offered friends-of-company shares exclusively though E-Trade, my company does it, etc. - so now I have yet another vendor to deal with and it tends to grow arms and legs unless you keep pulling money out and pushing it over to your preferred vendors. Target funds are actively managed assets, they have higher fees and constant re-balancing being done by humans to meet "the target" - they're still kind of new (many created mid-2010s I think) so we only have so much data, but generally they're 4-star and lag (returns) behind any common 5-star index fund. (compare 2 from the same vendor, for example SWPPX vs SWYGX but almost all vendors have them now, this is not investing advice).

In Canada our 401k-equivalent is the Registered Retirement Saving Plan (RRSP). Most companies have something similar to what you describe in that they hook up with a financial services company and do contribution matching. That company has certain offerings, either mutual fund (often fees/MERs > 1%) or if you're lucky perhaps ETFs nowadays.

I frequent /r/PersonalFinanceCanada and semi-often we get people asking which of the offered mutual funds should someone buy. The general consensus is that for most people to choose the funds that have the lowest fees and closely match a equity or bond index: pick a bond percentage weighting that generally let's you sleep at night.

When you leave a job you can often leave the money with the financial company, but it's often easier to do a liquidate-and-transfer to a 'central' RRSP account if you hope around a lot.

When you leave that employer, you can leave your 401k at that vendor but after awhile the old company starts to bug you about moving it as it's costing them money to maintain an account for an ex-employee. I missed that subtle point you noted - most companies (? all?) only match contributions to their vendor 401k, so there's our internal-company incentive to get you onto their plan to get those sweet, sweet matching dollars.

Why is that 9 year period special? You're just picking two bottoms of the market. 9/2002 to 2/2009 is -7% even with dividends.

But if I push it out only 1 year (9/2002 to 2/2010) the return is +25%.

Which is kind of my point: many people are looking at the last ten years and seeing that equities/S&P 500 can do no wrong. But things were painful in the previous decade. But then pretty good again in the 1990s.

See Index Fund Advisors' recent ~15 minute video "50 Year Market Review":

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M82Veytnsfw

A lot of people are dumping money into $SPY and and $QQQ, and that's certainly worked recently, but may not work all the time, especially if you have another few decades to go until retirement (which is many/most people's primary long-term financial goal is).

I will posit that 40 years is probably a bulk of the average person's investing years (25-65), and I may be being generous in "average" based on how often I read people do not invest (if true).

40 year (1980-2020) chart for VFINX (Vanguard S&P 500) - a share was $20 in 1980 (~$63 adjusted for inflation 2020); trades at $320 today. Using a random historical rate of return calculator[1], $10k one time invested in an S&P 500 index in 1980 is just shy of $238k at the end of 2019 at 8.5% return.

[1] https://financial-calculators.com/historical-investment-calc...

Except that at 65 (the 'traditional' retirement age) one generally doesn't just liquidate all one's equity holdings.

Best practices is generally to increase bond holdings as one ages, but going all-bonds/fixed income is rarely done as I understand things. Unless you've built up enough cash to simply buy an annuity so that it's now the insurance company's problem, or one has a pension, some form of equity returns are needed.

At 65, most people's average life expectancy can be another twenty years in most developed countries (with a 50% chance of making it into one's 90s), so from start (ending school) to finish (death), that could be 60 years. And that doesn't include a partner that may live beyond you if they're of a younger age, and so would also use whatever resources are left for their own needs.