先锋领航第一指数投资信托在50年前推出时募资仅略高于1100万美元（相当于今天的6500万美元），远低于预期的5000万至1.5亿美元，且曾被业内斥为短暂的噱头。半个世纪后的今天，指数基金已经占据主导地位：美国投资公司协会估计，美国投资基金管理的净资产中超过50%属于指数跟踪基金，在专注美国国内股票的基金中这一比例更高达64%。这种被动投资的崛起沉重打击了传统的主动型选股基金经理，后者往往将自身的长期落后归咎于指数投资工具对市场的统治。
然而，将指数投资视为完全“被动”的概念是不准确的，因为投资决策本身包含多重主动选择。投资者不仅必须在诸如涵盖50家巨头的STOXX欧洲50指数与包含396家公司的MSCI欧洲指数之间做出取舍，或者通过偏重科技股的纳斯达克100指数进行行业押注，而且在构建股债60/40配置时也是一种明确的主动分配。此外，指数基金管理者在执行层面也拥有广泛的自主裁量权，例如在初期通过抽样跟踪300只股票、策略性避开调仓抢先交易、优化税收以及通过证券借贷获取额外收益。
更为关键的是，指数基金的巨大规模正对资产价格形成深远影响。“非弹性市场假说”等学术研究表明，全额投资股票的固定配置基金的存在，使得每流入股市1美元就会将整体市场市值推高3至8美元，并让资金不成比例地流向市值最大的巨头。尽管这种机制可能加剧市场估值泡沫并固化巨头垄断，但指数基金依然具备核心优势：无论市场暴涨还是崩盘，指数基金都能以极低的费率捕捉市场平均回报，持续跑赢扣除高昂管理费后的传统主动型选股基金。
When Vanguard launched the First Index Investment Trust 50 years ago, it was widely deemed an initial failure, raising just over $11m (around $65m today) against an initial target of $50m to $150m. Half a century later, indexing has fundamentally reshaped global finance: the Investment Company Institute estimates that index trackers now oversee more than 50% of total net assets in American investment funds, rising to 64% among funds focused exclusively on domestic equities. This dramatic structural shift has continually frustrated active stock-pickers, who frequently attribute their persistent underperformance to the growing market dominance of passive vehicles.
Nevertheless, the characterization of index investing as purely "passive" is misleading, as the investment process requires significant active decision-making. Investors must actively choose between narrow benchmarks like the 50-stock STOXX Europe 50 and broader gauges like the 396-firm MSCI Europe, or make aggressive sector allocations such as tracking the tech-heavy NASDAQ 100, alongside strategic asset allocation choices like the standard 60/40 equity-bond split. Furthermore, fund managers themselves actively manage portfolios through sampling techniques—such as holding around 300 stocks to mirror the S&P 500—tax-loss harvesting, strategic rebalancing around index reconstitutions, and generating incremental revenue via securities lending.
More significantly, research indicates that index funds exert a growing, non-neutral impact on broader asset pricing. Under the "inelastic markets hypothesis," empirical evidence demonstrates that fixed-allocation equity trackers cause each $1 of market inflow to increase aggregate market value by $3 to $8, while disproportionately inflating the valuations of the largest index constituents. Although this concentration dynamic may exacerbate market distortions and foster equity bubbles, the mathematical advantages of low-cost index tracking ensure that investors continue to capture aggregate market returns more effectively than the average high-fee active fund over the long run.
Source: Hooray for index funds—just don’t call them passive
Subtitle: Jack Bogle’s creation has transformed markets, and involves plenty of choices
Dateline: 8月 13, 2026 05:04 上午