The Hidden Costs of Indexing Are Hurting Institutions’ Returns
Indexing has limits—rigid trading, hidden costs, and style drift can drag returns. A flexible, systematic approach may deliver higher returns with control.
For many institutional investors, indexing has become a default way to access the broad market, but the time has come to apply real scrutiny to this approach.
For much of the past 50 years, index funds have been a net positive for investors, who moved from expensive and concentrated conventional active strategies to a more diversified and low-cost option.
As trillions of dollars have flown into index funds, though, their limitations have become more apparent. Index funds may not be as passive or as low-cost as they appear. Their rigid trading—with the goal of minimizing tracking error (a common measure of performance deviation between a portfolio and a benchmark)—can create a performance drag that is not captured in fees and expenses.
The science of investing has advanced, and institutional investors should demand better solutions to meet their needs.
Indexes Are Not “The Market”
Many believe that an index is synonymous with “the market.” A quick glance at indexes that track the same asset category tells a different story.
Let’s look at the broad market equity indexes from major providers like MSCI, FTSE, and S&P.
In developed ex US markets over the past two decades, the average annual difference in returns (from best to worst) across these three providers has been 100 basis points. In emerging markets, the average annual difference has been 270 basis points.1 Those are big differences.
So, which one of the indexes is “the market”? None of them.
Index returns differ because they are designed by people (some sitting on index committees) who make decisions regarding market coverage, security eligibility, and rebalance frequency, among others. These are all active decisions that impact returns.
An Easy Target
The Achilles’ heel of indexing is the publisher-tracker model. An index provider publishes which stocks to track, in which quantities, and at what times, and then separate entities—index managers—buy and sell stocks to match what the index providers published. This means index funds tend to buy and sell the same things at the same time, creating a massive demand for liquidity that can destroy value for investors.
These reconstitution events (a period when stocks are added to or dropped from an index) attract a huge amount of trading. The average daily volume for these stocks tends to rise 20x to 50x higher over the following days and weeks.2 This puts index managers at a considerable disadvantage, since it can be disadvantageous for professional investors to publicly announce their upcoming trades.
When index providers publicly announce changes ahead of time, sophisticated traders such as hedge funds get ahead of these trades, acting as liquidity providers to the index funds. This typically pushes prices up before index funds buy and down before they sell.
Looking across the decade ending in December 2023, the stocks added and dropped from major indexes had their prices deviate by an average of 3% to 4% relative to the other stocks in the index.3
As a result, index fund managers systematically buy high and sell low. This creates a performance drag for both the index fund and the index itself.
These trading costs, which depend on several factors, such as the particular index and the amount of assets tracking it, may cost you as much as the expense ratio, meaning the cost of an index fund can be up to twice what you think.
If you are using the same index for both your investment and benchmark—which as a historical coincidence most investors do—you will never see this hidden cost. Why?
The trading costs are not in the expense ratio (so you won’t see them there), and they affect both your investment and the index (so you won’t see them in tracking error). This creates a hidden cost for investors.
Using the same index as both your investment and benchmark is like running a race and only knowing your own time. You might be able to compare your performance to your personal record (PR), but you don’t know whether your time was good or bad relative to other runners. Professional runners aren’t rewarded for beating their PRs; they are rewarded for beating others.
Style Drift
While concentrated preannounced trading is a major challenge for indexing, it is not the only challenge that comes with the rigidity of indexing. Rebalancing infrequently also comes with the potential for style drift. Securities’ characteristics evolve every day. An index strategy focused on small caps or value stocks can easily miss a strong period of outperformance by holding a stale roster of such names.
Moreover, every new dollar allocated to such a strategy is also going to the stale roster, compounding the problem. And even that next rebalancing might not resolve the problem because many indices these days apply gradual migrations and overlaps to stifle turnover across asset class indexes.
Well, that comes with the side effect of even more style drift.
A Better Approach
Since indexes are not “the market,” is minimizing tracking error to a specific index the right goal for a passive allocation?
The goal should be to make your passive investments work harder for you. Decide how much tracking error is acceptable, and then pursue higher returns that fit within the amount of tracking error you can handle.
A systematic yet flexible implementation process can stay within 25 to 75 basis points of tracking error versus a broad market index while using up-to-date market information to pursue higher expected returns, manage risks, and control costs.4
With tens of trillions of dollars being indexed, more and more institutional investors understand that low management fees are not the same as low costs and that even seemingly small improvements in net returns mean real money.
Footnotes
1. Time period: 2005 to 2025. Developed ex US index comparisons include average annual returns for S&P Developed ex US BMI Index (gross div.), MSCI World ex USA IMI Index (gross div.), and FTSE Developed All Cap ex US Total Return Index. Emerging markets index comparisons include average annual returns for S&P Emerging BMI Index (gross div.), MSCI Emerging Markets IMI Index (gross div.), and FTSE Emerging All Cap Total Return Index.
2. Source: Kaitlin Hendrix and Jerry Liu, "Measuring the Costs of Index Reconstitution: A Global Perspective” (research paper, Dimensional Fund Advisors, March 2025).
3. Ibid.
4. Source: Dimensional research.
Disclosures
The information in this material is intended for the recipient’s background information and use only. It is provided in good faith and without any warranty or representation as to accuracy or completeness. Information and opinions presented in this material have been obtained or derived from sources believed by Dimensional to be reliable, and Dimensional has reasonable grounds to believe that all factual information herein is true as at the date of this material. It does not constitute investment advice, a recommendation, or an offer of any services or products for sale and is not intended to provide a sufficient basis on which to make an investment decision. Before acting on any information in this document, you should consider whether it is appropriate for your particular circumstances and, if appropriate, seek professional advice. It is the responsibility of any persons wishing to make a purchase to inform themselves of and observe all applicable laws and regulations. Unauthorized reproduction or transmission of this material is strictly prohibited. Dimensional accepts no responsibility for loss arising from the use of the information contained herein.
This material is not directed at any person in any jurisdiction where the availability of this material is prohibited or would subject Dimensional or its products or services to any registration, licensing, or other such legal requirements within the jurisdiction.
“Dimensional” refers to the Dimensional separate but affiliated entities generally, rather than to one particular entity. These entities are Dimensional Fund Advisors LP, Dimensional Fund Advisors Ltd., Dimensional Ireland Limited, DFA Australia Limited, Dimensional Fund Advisors Canada ULC, Dimensional Fund Advisors Pte. Ltd., Dimensional Japan Ltd., and Dimensional Hong Kong Limited. Dimensional Hong Kong Limited is licensed by the Securities and Futures Commission to conduct Type 1 (dealing in securities) regulated activities only and does not provide asset management services.
RISKS
Investments involve risks. The investment return and principal value of an investment may fluctuate so that an investor’s shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original value. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. There is no guarantee strategies will be successful.
CANADA
These materials have been prepared by Dimensional Fund Advisors Canada ULC. The other Dimensional entities referenced herein are not registered resident investment fund managers or portfolio managers in Canada.
This material is not intended for Quebec residents.
Commissions, trailing commissions, management fees, and expenses all may be associated with mutual fund investments. Please read the prospectus before investing. Unless otherwise noted, any indicated total rates of return reflect the historical annual compounded total returns, including changes in share or unit value and reinvestment of all dividends or other distributions, and do not take into account sales, redemption, distribution, or optional charges or income taxes payable by any security holder that would have reduced returns. Mutual funds are not guaranteed, their values change frequently, and past performance may not be repeated.
Resources
