Recs

16

This Move Cost Index Funds Big Money

Watch stocks you care about

The single, easiest way to keep track of all the stocks that matter...

Your own personalized stock watchlist!

It's a 100% FREE Motley Fool service...

Click Here Now

As I pointed out last week, Russell Investments changed the roster of stocks it tracks in its stock indexes. The completion of the reconstitution process last Friday created a lot of action among the stocks affected by the moves, once again showing the influence that mutual funds that track these indexes have on the overall market.

The big bump
In order to stay correlated to their benchmarks, index funds had to sell shares of the companies removed from the indexes, while buying shares of newly added stocks. So what you might have expected to see is that shares of companies dropped from the index would fall dramatically on Friday, perhaps recovering after the selling pressure had dissipated. Conversely, stocks added to the index would bump higher on Friday and then fall back.

As it turns out, that's exactly what happened to most of the stocks dropped from the index that were mentioned in last week's article:

Stock

Change on June 26

Change on June 29

Sirius XM (Nasdaq: SIRI  )

(21.7%)

16.7%

Blockbuster (NYSE: BBI  )

(13.9%)

8.1%

Ingersoll-Rand (NYSE: IR  )

(2.5%)

(0.7%)

Capstone Turbine (Nasdaq: CPST  )

(12.6%)

11.8%

Finisar (Nasdaq: FNSR  )

(18.6%)

8.3%

Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM  )

(19.0%)

13.7%

Source: Russell Investments, Yahoo! Finance.

Hemispherx Biopharma (AMEX: HEB  ) , on the other hand, rose almost 19% on Friday after being added to the Russell index, but fell back 10% on Monday. All those changes came despite relatively flat moves of less than 1% for the overall market on those days.

The cost of indexing
From their magnitude and predictability, it's pretty clear that these moves were artificially induced by index fund activity. That's the downside of indexing: Fund managers must follow set rules, and other investors can take advantage of their behavior. As a result, index funds received less for shares they had to sell, and they paid more for the stocks they had to buy.

Given how much money is invested in index funds, you can expect these types of moves to occur any time an index makes a change to its component stocks. They definitely create costs for long-term index investors. Over time, though, index funds have still performed well compared to their active counterparts -- and even with occasional index changes, index funds remain a valuable tool for investors looking for low-maintenance and more predictable investments.

For more on how to invest like a pro, read about:

Best Odds in the Universe!
If you're interested in a 98.79% chance at beating the market... and a 70.84% chance at DOUBLING the market's return – Motley Fool Supernova could be just what you're looking for. And get this: We arrived at these odds from 10,000 random back-tested portfolios composed of Motley Fool Co-founder David Gardner's personal stock picks.

It's why David recently handpicked a small team of world-class portfolio managers. You see, he thinks these odds can get even better! And he'd like to prove it to you...

Simply enter your email address. And the answer to the question everybody is asking will be delivered to your inbox!

Our Motley Fool Hidden Gems newsletter combs through small-cap stocks to find tomorrow's big movers today. Every month features new stock recommendations. Click here for a free 30-day trial to see our latest picks and the analysis behind them.

Fool contributor Dan Caplinger knows there's no such thing as a sure thing, even if it worked out this time. He doesn't own shares of the companies mentioned. Try any of our Foolish newsletters today, free for 30 days. The Fool's disclosure policy isn't a one-day wonder.


Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On July 07, 2009, at 9:01 AM, BullishBroker74 wrote:

    By Brandon Matthews

    Traditional forms of media including television, radio and print are threatened by the success of Sirius XM Radio (SIRI). There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the organizations behind traditional forms of media have united on a single front to denigrate the Satellite Radio provider at any and all costs. I know this first hand as most of the negative comments left on Satwaves.com can be traced back to everything from terrestrial radio station operators to the National Association of Broadcasters. These traditional media conglomerates control everything most people see and hear. Consider if you will the number 1 hit by the Black Eyed Peas in which the words “Satellite Radio” have been bleeped out by terrestrial radio stations from coast to coast.

    In the years since Howard Stern first joined Sirius, traditional media has made a point of downplaying Howard Stern's relevance. Just last October, the Los Angeles Times published this article which made the claim that Howard Stern was no longer relevant, and that his listeners had dwindled to a fraction of the number that once tuned in. The Los Angeles Times happens to be owned by Tribune; “America’s largest employee-owned media company, operating businesses in publishing, interactive and broadcasting.” The same article was syndicated and republished on an almost daily basis for several weeks that followed, assuring that the story would be told in every major U.S. market and maintain a top ranked listing in google news search results.

    That is why I could not help but laugh hysterically at the newest media attempts to control the American public’s view of Sirius XM Radio through new articles that claim Howard Stern will leave Sirius XM nearly two years from now. These articles now make the claim that Howard Stern is so important and popular, that Sirius XM’s survival hinges on whether or not Howard decides to stay with Sirius XM when his contract comes up for renewal in 2011! Unfortunately, some people seem to be buying into this manipulation and fear-mongering. The reach of these media outlets is unlimited in scope.

    As an example, on the eve of Sirius XM’s announcement that its iPhone application had reached a million downloads, a story was written suggesting that Sirius XM stock would be a good short sale candidate by a known writer who has denigrated Sirius for years. I recall writing that it seemed like a signal was being sent on the Satwaves forums the moment I read it. As trading progressed the following day it looked as if Sirius XM stock would rise precipitously on the iPhone application news. CNBC even picked up the story, but if you follow Sirius XM you knew what was coming next.

    It was then reported that the app, despite having over a million downloads, had a low rating based on the absence of The Howard Stern Show. The very same show that the media has been proclaiming to be irrelevant. The stock ended the day's session flat as a result. Out of nearly 19 million subscribers and out of 1 million iPhone app downloads, the app was given a low rating by a mere 38,000 people. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that anyone can bash the application, whether or not they even own an Apple device. I rated the application 5 stars, and I have no iPod nor iPhone. I simply signed up using my AOL account. It can hardly be deemed a reliable source of consumer sentiment compared to the fact that it remains the number 1 downloaded music application.

    As for Howard Stern, terrestrial radio is already on life support. Clear Channel is knocking on bankruptcy’s door. When it comes to radio companies, there is only one that is growing. There is only one that can offer Howard the freedom to do his show and produce new shows without fear of retribution from the FCC. By the year 2011, it is probable that no radio company in existence would be able to afford Howard Stern while offering him a minuscule percentage of his current national audience. Only one radio company can offer The Howard Stern Show a potential global audience in the years to come. That radio company is Sirius XM Radio.

    As for the media manipulation: People should make a stand. If you’d like to be told what to read and hear only that which is selected for you, you might want to consider a move to North Korea. Turn off your am/fm radios. Pick up a Satellite Radio and subscription. Send a message to traditional media that they cannot control what you see and what you hear. I have and in this lies true freedom.

    Position: Long SIRI

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 931951, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 2/14/2012 8:20:46 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated Moments ago Sponsored by:
DOW 12,878.28 4.24 0.03%
S&P 500 1,350.50 -1.27 -0.09%
NASD 2,931.83 0.44 0.02%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

2/14/2012 3:59 PM
HEB $0.33 Down -0.02 -5.71%
Hemispherx BioPhar… CAPS Rating: *
IR $38.90 Down -0.03 -0.08%
Ingersoll-Rand Com… CAPS Rating: ****
SIRI $2.15 Down -0.01 -0.23%
Sirius XM Radio CAPS Rating: **
FNSR $22.67 Up +0.09 +0.40%
Finisar Corp CAPS Rating: ***
BLOKA.PK $0.19 Up +0.01 +0.00%
Blockbuster, Inc. CAPS Rating: *
CPST $1.18 Down -0.04 -2.89%
Capstone Turbine C… CAPS Rating: ***
FNMA.OB $0.34 Up +0.01 +3.34%
Fannie Mae CAPS Rating: **

Advertisement