That's good for wealth preservation and nominal maintenance. But it's almost certainly not going to generate wealth. Buffett is one of the richest people in the world because he manages money for other people (and does it well), not because he bought and held index funds.
Obtaining vast wealth requires doing things which have a multiplier effect well beyond the scale of your labor. That usually requires doing something related to the aggregation or generation of capital. It can't be done solely with your own capital unless you're already wealthy.
Unless you bought Kodak, Enron or Pets.com. You still have to pick the right stocks. For most it's probably better to buy an index fund. I bought Cisco in 1999 and I think it's barely back to that level right now and it will probably go down once this bull market ends.
“Almost never sell” doesnt mean he never sells. Most people read this quite literally. Giving it more weight than the actual investor. This guy by his own admission sells off when is loss 25% or more. So those positions that you mentioned would have been sold off for tax harvesting reasons. He might have acquired a new position in the same stock if he believed in the company and his investment thesis.
If you diversify enough then a tiny amount in Kodak, Enron, and Pets.com isn't going to hurt you. That whole HODLing thing isn't unique, Bitcoin is just a simulation
But that's not what index funds are at all. The S&P 500 re-balances every quarter and stocks are constantly being swapped out.
It's much more likely that if you chose some stock in 1940s and never sold that you would have lost money than made money.
The reason why the S&P 500 looks so good overtime is because the S&P 500 is actively managed. It is effectively crowd-sourced from the very best invest ideas of mutual funds and hedge funds.
It also involves rebalancing the weights of each stock to account for stock splits, dividends, and change in market capitalization or the float number (the amount of shares on the public markets).
> It also involves rebalancing the weights of each stock to account for stock splits,
No.
> dividends,
No.
> and change in market capitalization
No (at least for the changes related to price movements and not share count).
> or the float number (the amount of shares on the public markets).
The last one is the only valid concern. In the end turnover is quite low (a few percentage points per year, including additions/removals and adjustments, if I remember correctly).
Regular dividends are not on that list (only "special" dividends result in adjustments). And market cap changes are only relevant as far as the "change in outstanding shares" is concerned, which is not usually the main driver for market cap changes.
The problems for an index are a little different than an ETF following an index. If you have to allocate capital behind the index, you have to do some more adjustments and the expense ratio is going to reflect that.
Therein lies one of the great secrets to wealth.
Buffett, Bogle, etc. all espouse it. For those who are looking for ways to level the economic field (at least personally), take note.