Comprehensive guidance on selecting, assessing, and regularly reviewing index-based equity vehicles, with practical insights for CFA® 2025 Level III candidates.
Index-based equity strategies have become a mainstay in modern portfolio management, offering cost-effective and transparent ways to gain broad market exposure. In previous sections (see 1.1 for the Rationale of Index‑Based Equity Investing and 1.2 for a discussion on weighting approaches), we covered how these products fit into an overall equity allocation. Here, the focus is on evaluating and monitoring index-based investments on an ongoing basis. Even though an index fund or ETF may appear straightforward—after all, it’s “just” tracking a benchmark—ensuring that the product you pick remains well-aligned with your investment objectives, risk tolerance, and broader policy constraints is an ongoing challenge.
I remember a conversation with a colleague who said, “It’s an index fund—what’s there to monitor?” Well, plenty! From tracking error to fund flows and liquidity, it’s essential to pay attention. If you care about the difference between your expected returns and real-life outcomes, then evaluating and monitoring index investments is not just recommended but key to your success.
Below, we’ll explore criteria for selecting an index fund or ETF, standard approaches to ongoing performance evaluation, considerations around liquidity and spreads, and how to maintain alignment with the Investment Policy Statement (IPS). We’ll also show how to interpret key metrics like tracking difference and expense ratios. By the end of this discussion, you’ll have a stronger sense of how to choose the right index product—and how to keep an eye on it over time.
When considering any index-based investment, whether it’s an ETF or a mutual fund, there are important yardsticks to evaluate:
The underlying index methodology is foundational. Some indexes track broad-based market segments, while others have narrower mandates such as sectors, geographies, or factor exposures. Importantly, the index’s construction—be it market-cap weighted, equal-weighted, or fundamentally weighted—affects portfolio behavior. Before you invest, it’s wise to explore Section 1.2, where we discussed differences in weighting approaches, to ensure the chosen index methodology aligns with your investment thesis.
Some questions to ask:
• How frequently is the index reconstituted and rebalanced?
• Are there constraints on sector, country, or factor exposure?
• Does the methodology exclude certain stocks (e.g., based on ESG criteria)?
A narrower universe can lead to more volatile returns, so be sure you’re structurally comfortable with that trade-off.
Expense ratios are often the first number people compare—understandably so, because fees directly reduce your net returns. But expense ratios alone don’t tell the full story. For ETFs, transaction fees and bid-ask spreads can subtly eat away at returns, especially if you trade frequently. For index mutual funds, there may be fees if you redeem shares within a certain time or if you don’t meet minimum holding requirements. Interestingly, sometimes an index mutual fund with a slightly higher published expense ratio might still be cheaper for certain types of investors if it offers a more favorable share class or if your trading volume is low.
A fund’s size can matter—larger funds tend to enjoy economies of scale that come in handy for minimizing expenses, facilitating more efficient rebalancing, and keeping trading costs under control. That said, a fund that is too large may also face challenges replicating smaller components of the index, especially if it invests in less liquid stocks. For example, you might see large funds that own a huge percentage of thinly traded small-cap stocks. This can lead to market impact costs when they rebalance or meet redemptions.
Tracking error measures how closely a fund’s performance tracks that of its benchmark. Even a purely passive strategy needs to buy and sell securities to handle inflows, outflows, and index reconstitutions. These factors create small deviations from the index’s performance.
• Frequent rebalancing or more complicated indexes (like multi-factor or sector-based) may see higher tracking error.
• A low tracking error is obviously desirable. But watch out for funds that claim zero tracking error—there can be short-term illusions or data reporting discrepancies.
In practice, many investors also monitor tracking difference, which simply measures the difference in total return between the fund and the index over a specified time. While the terms “tracking error” and “tracking difference” are sometimes used interchangeably, they measure slightly different aspects of performance discrepancy.
An obvious place to start, but frequently overlooked in detail: compare actual fund performance to the benchmark at regular intervals—monthly, quarterly, and annually. Beyond absolute performance, it’s prudent to break down the excess return (or shortfall) due to:
• Management fees and expense ratio.
• Portfolio turnover and transaction costs.
• Cash drag (when the manager holds cash for liquidity needs).
• Any sampling or optimization approach (discussed in Section 1.3).
You might be surprised how quickly small differences accumulate. Keeping a regular scorecard helps detect if the fund’s performance is drifting from expectations.
Indexes themselves are not static. Over time, the index provider might:
• Change indexing rules or the reconstitution schedule.
• Add or remove certain securities based on new classification criteria.
• Merge with another index provider, altering product definitions.
I recall a situation years ago where an emerging markets index changed its classification criteria for frontier markets. That single change altered the risk/return profile of the index significantly—something a friend of mine discovered too late when the fund started drifting from the expected return profile. The lesson: keep tabs on announcements from index providers and check the weights and constituents regularly.
Monitoring liquidity is critical: even if you hold for the long term, there can be times (especially in volatile markets) when you need to trade or rebalance. High liquidity in the underlying securities typically translates into tighter bid-ask spreads for ETFs. Lower spreads reduce the total cost of ownership, though you may also face greater volatility in times of market stress.
For mutual funds, “liquidity” is less about intraday trading and more about whether you can redeem shares at the end of the trading day at a fair NAV. Nonetheless, certain funds might impose restrictions on how quickly you can redeem or have short-term redemption fees—important to keep in mind if you anticipate frequent shifts.
Tracking error can creep up for various reasons, such as changing liquidity conditions, large inflows/outflows, changes in fund managers or sub-advisors, and shifting portfolio compositions. If you’re seeing a consistent increase in tracking error that doesn’t appear to be temporary, it’s a signal to dig deeper.
Even “passive” investments rely on highly methodical fund managers (or investment teams) to replicate the index as efficiently as possible. While active skill is not the primary driver of returns, a manager’s expertise influences:
• Handling of index events like rebalancing and corporate actions.
• Minimization of tracking error via full replication or optimized sampling.
• Effective use of technology and algorithmic tools for trade execution.
Reputation counts—you’ll often notice that brands with a strong presence in passive management (like certain large global asset managers) tend to handle rebalancing and tracking better. That’s partly thanks to robust infrastructure and longstanding relationships with brokers and market makers.
Fund flows matter more than many realize. Large, sudden inflows can mean the fund manager must buy a large volume of securities quickly, driving up transaction costs and temporarily increasing tracking error. On the flip side, big redemptions can force sales and realize capital gains, affecting the after-tax returns for remaining shareholders, especially in jurisdictions with capital gains pass-through requirements.
It’s wise to monitor net inflows and outflows periodically. You can often find that data on fund sponsor websites or third-party analytics tools. A stable or steadily growing asset base tends to benefit shareholders (via consistent rebalancing, lower transaction costs from scale, etc.). Volatility in asset flows can also lead to higher turnover, which can be detrimental if you hold the fund in a taxable account.
In the United States, many index mutual funds and ETFs are structured under the Investment Company Act of 1940. In Europe, UCITS (Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities) is the regulatory standard. Around the world, you’ll find different regulatory frameworks, each with its own rules about how funds can be marketed, the level of protection provided to investors, and what disclosures are required.
• UCITS funds, for instance, can be sold across EU borders with relative ease, ensuring a broad investor base.
• U.S. 1940 Act funds have strict disclosure and governance requirements.
For a global investor, the particular domicile of a fund could influence withholding taxes on dividends, the ability to trade on certain exchanges, compliance with local regulations, and differences in fees.
Some funds distribute dividends regularly, while others accumulate them within the fund. The frequency and manner of dividend distribution can affect your tax situation:
• If the fund distributes dividends frequently, you might incur taxes on dividend payouts even if you reinvest them (depending on your jurisdiction).
• Accumulating funds often reinvest dividends automatically within the fund, which may be more tax-efficient in some locations.
Always double-check the fund’s approach to dividends, especially if your investment strategy seeks stable cash flows (as with certain endowments or retiree portfolios).
Both vehicles track market indexes, but each has its own set of benefits and drawbacks:
• Intraday liquidity: ETFs trade on exchanges throughout the day. This can be an advantage if you want to quickly respond to market changes or implement tactical tilts (though do note that continuous trading can also tempt some investors to overtrade).
• Potentially lower expense ratios: Many popular ETFs compete on fees, often leading to extremely low expense ratios for broad-based markets.
• Transaction costs: If you buy or sell shares frequently, commissions and bid-ask spreads can add up.
• Simplicity of trading: You buy or redeem directly at the fund’s net asset value (NAV) once per day. It’s straightforward and typically does not involve extra commissions.
• No intraday price volatility: Some investors prefer the calm of a single price per day rather than the minute-by-minute quotes found in ETFs.
• Different share classes: Large fund families often offer multiple share classes with different expense ratios, allowing scale benefits for institutional or long-term investors.
In practice, your preference might boil down to the importance of intraday liquidity and your trading patterns. If you frequently use short-term rebalancing strategies, an ETF might fit better. If your approach is more “buy-and-hold,” an index mutual fund can be the simpler choice.
Every aspect of your index-fund selection and monitoring should align with your Investment Policy Statement (IPS). For instance, if your IPS includes an ESG constraint against certain industries, you’ll need an index that either excludes those industries or systematically underweights them. If your IPS states a strict limit on total portfolio fees, that might rule out specialized thematic ETFs with higher expense ratios.
The IPS is your North Star—any deviation from it, even if that deviation is in “passive” holdings, can undermine your entire asset allocation strategy. Periodically review your index investments to ensure they still fit your broader risk and return profile.
• Don’t chase “hot” indexes. A new thematic ETF might be all the rage, but if it doesn’t fit your strategic asset allocation, or if the underlying environment changes, you risk style drift and performance disappointment.
• Watch for “hidden” costs. Low advertised expense ratios can be overshadowed by wide trading spreads, especially on thinly traded ETFs or those focusing on niche segments.
• Monitor reconstitution events. Index turnover can be surprisingly costly if not managed well, especially in smaller or less liquid markets.
• Pay attention to tax implications. Funds that frequently distribute capital gains can erode after-tax performance in taxable accounts.
Let’s say you’re inspired by emerging technologies in the automotive sector—autonomous and electric vehicles—and you stumble on an ETF that tracks an index of “Global Autonomous & EV Innovators.” It seems like a great idea. But how do you evaluate it?
• Check the index methodology: Does the index screen for actual revenue from these activities, or does it simply hold big tech names that provide partial solutions?
• Investigate fund size: If the fund has only $50 million in AUM, is that sustainable? Will you be able to sell quickly if you need to?
• Look at expense ratios and bid-ask spreads: If the expense ratio is 0.75% and the average bid-ask spread is 0.30%, that’s already more expensive than a broad market ETF with an expense ratio under 0.10%.
• Examine historical tracking error: If the index is somewhat illiquid or invests in smaller innovative firms, you may see bigger gaps in performance.
• Regulatory constraints: Check whether it’s UCITS-compliant or a U.S. 1940 Act product and how dividends will be distributed.
If, after a deep look, everything aligns with your objectives, the ETF might be suitable. But if you need a large, liquid vehicle to manage short-term rebalancing or if your IPS has strict cost constraints, this “cool-sounding” product may not fit well.
Below is a simple Mermaid.js diagram visualizing a generic process for evaluating and monitoring an index-based fund. It shows each step from selection to continuous review:
flowchart LR
A["Identify <br/>Investment Objectives"] --> B["Select <br/>Appropriate Index"]
B --> C["Assess Fund <br/>Expense & Size"]
C --> D["Compare <br/>Historical Tracking"]
D --> E["Evaluate Liquidity & <br/>Bid-Ask Spreads"]
E --> F["Check Fund's <br/>Regulatory Structure"]
F --> G["Review Fund <br/>Alignment with IPS"]
G --> H["Monitor Performance <br/>and Flows Over Time"]
Evaluating and monitoring index investments is an ongoing process that demands both quantitative and qualitative analysis. You’re not just “buying the market”—you’re buying a specific vehicle that aims to replicate an index. Differences in product structure, fund size, expense ratios, liquidity, and regulatory factors can lead to divergence from the benchmark and potential performance drag.
On the CFA Level III exam, you can expect scenario-based questions that test your ability to select and monitor index products. They might present a hypothetical investor’s IPS and challenge you to identify the best passively managed fund—one that aligns with specific constraints and objectives. You may also find constructed-response questions that request an explanation of how tracking error or other key metrics can impact a portfolio’s returns.
A few final tips:
• Make sure to practice identifying the root causes of tracking error (especially in multi-factor indexes).
• Demonstrate how you would address persistent underperformance in an index investment during a performance presentation.
• Don’t forget to incorporate rebalancing costs and tax implications.
By mastering best practices in evaluating and monitoring index investments, you’ll be well on your way to navigating real-world portfolio decisions and acing relevant exam questions.
• Exchange‑Traded Fund (ETF): An investment fund traded on major stock exchanges, typically tracking an index, offering intraday liquidity.
• Open‑End Fund (Mutual Fund): A collective investment vehicle that issues and redeems shares at its net asset value (NAV).
• Tracking Difference: The difference between a fund’s total return and that of its benchmark index over a given period.
• Bid‑Ask Spread: The difference between the highest price a buyer is willing to pay and the lowest price a seller will accept.
• UCITS (Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities): A regulatory framework in the European Union for collective investment schemes that can be marketed across the EU.
• IPS (Investment Policy Statement): A document that defines the client’s/investor’s objectives, constraints, and strategies.
• NAV (Net Asset Value): The per-share value of a mutual fund’s assets minus its liabilities.
• Liquidity: The degree to which an asset can be quickly bought or sold without significantly affecting its price.
• Malkiel, Burton G. “A Random Walk Down Wall Street.” W.W. Norton & Company.
• Morningstar: “ETF vs. Mutual Fund Comparison.” (https://www.morningstar.com)
• CFA Institute: “Introduction to Exchange‑Traded Funds.”
• Vanguard Portfolio Watch Tools and Updates (https://advisors.vanguard.com)
These resources provide expanded discussions of both theoretical and practical aspects of index fund selection, performance, and strategies. They’re excellent for additional insight and exam prep.
Important Notice: FinancialAnalystGuide.com provides supplemental CFA study materials, including mock exams, sample exam questions, and other practice resources to aid your exam preparation. These resources are not affiliated with or endorsed by the CFA Institute. CFA® and Chartered Financial Analyst® are registered trademarks owned exclusively by CFA Institute. Our content is independent, and we do not guarantee exam success. CFA Institute does not endorse, promote, or warrant the accuracy or quality of our products.