I explained how fundamental index funds work, and how they can outperform regular index funds. But how much do they outperform by? Are they worth the extra MER premium compared to regular index ETF’s? Does the strategy of indexing based on fundamental factors instead of market capitalization really work?

Hopefully, this article will answer some of those questions.

According to pro financial asset management, below are the annualized returns of various indexes between Dec 1984 to Dec 2005:

Rank Country Fundamental Index Regular Index Difference
1 Ireland 19.67% 11.03% 8.64%
2 Austria 17.99% 13.06% 4.93%
3 Norway 17.07% 12.28% 4.79%
4 France 16.95% 13.03% 3.92%
5 Singapore 11.44% 7.69% 3.75%
8 Canada 13.59% 10.39% 3.20%
9 Hong Kong 20.15% 17.03% 3.13%
17 United States 14.65% 12.52% 2.13%
19 Finland 15.17% 13.57% 1.60%
20 Belgium 16.33% 14.94% 1.38%
21 Netherlands 14.06% 12.71% 1.35%
22 New Zealand 6.93% 6.77% 0.15%
23 Switzerland 11.24% 12.31% -1.07%

To put it in perspective, if you invested $50,000 20 years ago in a regular Canadian index fund, it would be worth around $361,048 (not counting inflation). Decent right?

However, if you invested the same $50,000 with a Canadian fundamental index fund 20 years ago, it would be worth $639,399 (not counting inflation). This represents a 77% overall difference in account size and a compelling argument for the fundamental indexing strategy.

This also goes to show how much a couple of percentage points can add up over the long term which is also the reason why you want to keep your MER’s as low as possible.

A couple notes about the table above, the returns are the pure index and the not the funds themselves. To appreciate what a fund would return, the MER and tracking error would have to be accounted for. Also past performance does not indicate future returns.

What are your thoughts on the fundamental index funds/ETF’s? Do you own any of them?


  1. FrugalTrader on June 3, 2008 at 9:16 am

    I forgot to mention in the post that, as noted by Preet yesterday, the more inefficient the market, the better the fundamental index performs.

  2. Cash Instinct on June 4, 2008 at 12:32 am

    Although it would be too much work to research, I wonder about the long-term effects of the costs of rebalancing and/or higher MER, capital gains, etc.

    I also wonder about the 20-year-long study, whether it is a enough long time frame in order to compare «fundamental» Vs «regular».

    Nonetheless, it is an interesting study.

  3. Ed Rempel on June 4, 2008 at 12:54 am

    Hi FT,

    There is a big danger that fundamental indexing is nothing more than 20:20 hindsight. The way we believe they are mostly created is to go through the data on 100’s of stats and pick a handful that performed best in the past. Then you can show how much better your new index based on those stats would have performed.

    Ken Fisher in his book “The Only 3 Questions you need to ask” claims that fundamental indexes have tended not to outperform ordinary indexes going forward. They only outperform in hindsight.

    Having said that, the 4 factors listed in your first article sound reasonable and I’m sure there must be many stats that would outperform regular indexes.

    My guess would be that these 4 factors would result in more turnover than regular indexes and more turnover almost always results in lower returns.


  4. The Financial Blogger on June 4, 2008 at 6:53 am

    Were you able to find Funadmental index funds existing over the past 5-10 years and compare it to your chart? I know for a fact that on paper, most trading strategies will present better returns than the market itself. However, when you get to the real world, for some unknown reasons, things end-up a different way ;-)

  5. Dividend Growth Investor on June 4, 2008 at 12:49 pm

    The fund annual costs are an important yardstick. Sure they did outperform the market for the past 21 years. But was it using real money, or was it a backtest?
    It seems to me that the reason why fundamental indexes outperform the market is because most fundamentally sound companies were unaffected by the bursting of the technology bubble in 2000-2002.


  6. Peter on June 5, 2008 at 9:45 pm

    Question from a newbie:

    From the perspective of returns, fees, and tax efficiency, how do fundamental index ETFs compare to cap-weighted value index ETFs, e.g. Vanguard VTV, VOE, and VBR?

  7. Invest the rest on June 10, 2008 at 11:38 am

    DGI – you’ve hit the nail on the head. Fundamentally sounds companies are less affected by bubbles and bursts, and by investing in those companies you can get better risk adjusted returns.
    I know Buffet said he’d prefer a “bumpy 15% over a smooth 10%”, but I don’t think that applies to non-billionaires.
    I’ve looked into FI a lot, and it’s hard to find an arguement against using it as a major position.
    The best part about it, it’s available as a mutual fund, so no worries of low liquidity, etc.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.