Index Investing as an Active Decision: An Exploration of Evolution and Customization

Key points

Index investing continues to evolve since its inception, from a rudimentary representation of market performance to a more sophisticated and integral component of institutional investment strategies. The broad acceptance and implementation of indexing are both now ubiquitous, making index funds and the decisions across benchmarks key inputs into asset allocation and portfolio construction. The evolution of indexing encompasses several key areas, including passive equity investing, fixed income investing, and more recently, index customization, which highlights an important shift in how investors approach the uses for indexing.

Evolving Approaches to Indexing

Traditionally, index investing was synonymous with passive equity strategies and funds that aimed to replicate the performance of well-known benchmarks such as the S&P 500 Index. As market dynamics have evolved, so too have the methodologies – the rules and design of indexes – and therefore the ways in which indexes are employed.

Fixed income indexing, for example, has gained traction as institutional investors recognize the benefit of incorporating cost-effective fixed income strategies within portfolios. This transition was marked by significant advancements in technology, enabling more precise means to measure and track fixed income markets. As a result, investors have increasingly sought out more tailored strategies that address specific market segments, align with risk tolerances, and allow for flexibility in response to changing economic conditions.

At the core of effective index investing is the critical decision regarding benchmark selection. The choice of benchmark can influence investment performance, making the indexing decision an active engagement rather than a passive one. Institutional investors may find that the benchmark indices originally chosen some years ago require reevaluation in light of methodological updates or evolving market conditions. This reassessment is increasingly necessary as even seemingly minor methodology differences can result in unexpectedly different and non-intuitive outcomes.