The hidden costs of passive investing: how significant are they?

As every TEBI reader knows, market-cap-weighted indexing is a very sensible strategy. But the hidden costs of passive investing can dwarf the headline fees you see on fund fact sheets. New research reveals that index funds face invisible expenses — from predictable trading patterns to stamp duty drag — that can amount to hundreds of basis points annually. While your index tracker might advertise a 0.07% fee, the true cost of owning the market is often several times higher. Here's what every UK investor needs to know about the price of "simple" investing.

When Berkshire Hathaway was added to the S&P 500 in February 2010, something peculiar happened. The stock jumped nearly 12% after the announcement, only to fall back after index-tracking funds had bought their shares. This wasn't market euphoria about Warren Buffett's company; it was a textbook example of how "simple" passive investing isn't quite as simple as it appears.

Index funds have revolutionised investing with a compelling promise: own the entire market for a fraction of the cost of active management. With annual fees often below 0.1%, these funds seem like the perfect solution for long-term investors. The Financial Conduct Authority has championed their low costs, and countless studies show they outperform most active funds after fees.

But here's the paradox: while you can see every penny of the annual management charge, a host of hidden costs lurk beneath the surface. These invisible expenses (from forced trading during index changes to the friction of replicating thousands of holdings) can quietly erode returns in ways that never appear on your fund fact sheet.

Recent academic research suggests these hidden costs can amount to hundreds of basis points in some circumstances, potentially dwarfing the headline management fees. For UK investors, additional factors like stamp duty and the peculiarities of different index methodologies add further complexity.

This isn't an argument against passive investing (these funds remain excellent value for most investors). But understanding the full cost picture helps set realistic expectations and can inform smarter investment decisions. Let's examine the four main categories of hidden costs that every index fund investor should understand.

The four hidden cost of passive investing

Index rebalancing costs: The price of predictability

The most significant hidden cost in passive investing stems from a fundamental requirement: index funds must buy and sell stocks exactly when indices dictate, regardless of market conditions. This predictability creates what researchers call "adverse selection" (sophisticated traders can anticipate these moves and profit at the expense of passive investors).

Dr Iro Tasitsiomi's groundbreaking June 2025 research, On the Hidden Costs of Passive Investing, reveals the scale of this problem. Her analysis shows that passive strategies focused on maintaining zero tracking error (buying newly added stocks only at market close on reconstitution day) can result in costs amounting to "hundreds of basis points" compared to more flexible approaches.

The mechanics are straightforward but costly. When Standard & Poor's announces that a company will join the S&P 500, every fund tracking that index must buy shares on the same day. This creates enormous buying pressure at predictable times. Meanwhile, hedge funds and other traders buy ahead of this demand, driving prices higher, then sell to index funds at inflated prices.

Academic studies have quantified these costs across different indices. Research by Professor Antti Petajisto found that the annual turnover drag was approximately 0.21% to 0.28% for S&P 500 funds and a substantial 0.38% to 0.77% for small-cap Russell 2000 funds. Other researchers found similar effects: Chen, Noronha, and Singal estimated turnover costs of roughly 0.03% to 0.12% for the S&P 500 and 1.3% to 1.8% for the Russell 2000.

The pattern is remarkably consistent: stocks added to major indices often surge in the days before inclusion as traders build positions, then experience partial reversals after passive funds complete their purchases. This means index funds systematically buy high and sell low around rebalancing events.

For UK investors, this dynamic affects both domestic and international index funds. FTSE index changes follow similar patterns, though the effects may be somewhat smaller due to less aggressive trading by UK market participants. However, many UK investors hold global index funds that track US indices like the S&P 500, exposing them to these costs.

The proliferation of Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) has intensified these effects. As Larry Swedroe notes in his analysis of the Tasitsiomi research, "securities with high ETF ownership face larger price impacts during reconstitution with mean returns up to 6-10% over a short window and significantly higher volume."

Tracking error and implementation friction: The true cost revealed

While management fees grab headlines, tracking difference tells the real story of what index investing costs. Tracking difference measures how much a fund's returns fall short of its benchmark index each year, capturing all the hidden frictions that don't appear in the annual management charge.

In an ideal world, a FTSE All-Share index fund charging 0.1% annually would lag its benchmark by exactly that amount. In reality, the shortfall is often larger. The extra gap comes from implementation costs: the bid-ask spreads paid on every trade, the market impact of large transactions, withholding taxes on foreign dividends, and the drag from holding small cash balances.

This reveals why tracking difference, not the headline fee, represents the true cost of index investing. If a tracker has a 0.1% management fee but consistently lags its index by 0.25%, that extra 0.15% represents hidden costs eating into returns.

For UK investors, stamp duty adds a uniquely British element to these costs. UK index funds must pay 0.5% stamp duty on purchases of domestic shares. While large-cap FTSE 100 trackers might have minimal turnover, a FTSE All-Share fund could easily trade 5-10% of its portfolio annually due to index changes and cash flows. At 0.5% tax on those trades, stamp duty alone could add 2.5 to 5 basis points per year in hidden costs.

The choice between physical and synthetic replication adds another layer of complexity. Physical replication means buying every stock in the index, which is comprehensive but expensive for indices with thousands of small holdings. Synthetic replication uses derivatives to track the index's performance, avoiding some trading costs but introducing counterparty risk and often higher fees.

Some funds use sampling (holding only the largest and most liquid stocks in an index while using mathematical techniques to match overall performance). This reduces trading costs but introduces small tracking errors as the fund doesn't perfectly mirror its benchmark.

Fund providers have developed increasingly sophisticated approaches to minimise these costs. Securities lending, where funds lend their holdings to short-sellers in exchange for fees, can generate revenue that partially offsets implementation costs. However, this income is often retained by fund management companies rather than passed through to investors.

Liquidity constraints and market impact: The invisible transaction tax

Every time an index fund trades, it faces the invisible tax of market impact (the cost of moving prices against itself when buying or selling large quantities of shares). This cost varies dramatically depending on the liquidity of underlying holdings and the size of the fund.

Bid-ask spreads represent the most visible component of trading costs. Every share purchase must cross the spread between what sellers are asking and buyers are bidding. For large, liquid stocks like Vodafone or BP, these spreads might be just a few pence. For smaller companies or international markets, spreads can reach 1% or more of the share price.

Market impact amplifies these costs when large funds trade significant quantities. When a £1 billion FTSE All-Share tracker needs to buy shares in a smaller company following an index addition, the sheer volume can push the price higher. The fund ends up paying more than the prevailing market price simply because of its own trading activity.

This dynamic becomes particularly problematic during the annual reconstitution of indices like the FTSE Russell family, often called the "Russell Roll". On this single day each June, trading volumes in affected stocks can surge to 10-120 times normal levels as index funds execute mandatory trades simultaneously. Prices can move sharply in the final moments of trading as fund managers concentrate their trades at market close to minimise tracking error.

International investing compounds these challenges. Emerging market index funds often show tracking differences exceeding 1%, much of which stems from trading in less liquid markets with wider spreads and limited market infrastructure. Time zone differences can force funds to trade when local markets are closed, further increasing costs.

Fund size creates a paradox: while larger funds can negotiate better trading terms and spread fixed costs across more assets, they also face greater market impact when trading. A £10 billion global index fund moving even 1% of its assets represents £100 million in trades that must be executed carefully to avoid moving markets.

Currency hedging adds another layer of costs for UK investors in international index funds. Hedged funds must constantly adjust their currency positions as underlying asset values change, generating additional trading costs and tracking differences that don't exist in unhedged versions.

Factor drift and style migration: When indices lose their way

Traditional indices follow rigid rules for periodic reconstitution, typically annually for style indices and quarterly for market capitalisation indices. Between these rebalancing dates, stocks can migrate between categories, causing indices to drift away from their intended exposure.

Research by Dimensional Fund Advisors uncovered a striking example of this drift: "On average from 2010 through mid-2023, roughly 25% of the Russell 2000 Index (ostensibly a small-cap index) was actually composed of stocks that had migrated into the largest 1,000 companies (mid- and large-cap) by the time just before reconstitution."

This drift matters because investors may not receive the exposure they're paying for. Part of a "small-cap index fund" effectively becomes a mid-cap fund, potentially earning lower returns than true small-cap stocks would deliver. Similarly, growth and value style indices can overlap significantly as stocks drift between categories over the course of a year.

When indices finally rebalance, they must belatedly sell stocks that have grown beyond their category (often after significant price appreciation) and buy new qualifying stocks (often after periods of underperformance). This creates a systematic pattern of selling winners and buying losers (the opposite of successful investing).

Rob Arnott and colleagues documented this phenomenon in their 2023 study, The Avoidable Costs of Index Rebalancing. They found that "discretionary deletions beat additions by 22%, on average" in the year after S&P 500 Index changes. The index's mechanical rules caused it to systematically add relative "losers" and delete relative "winners," leading to foregone returns.

Arnott's research suggests that simple rule changes (like delaying trades or being more flexible about timing) could add up to 23 basis points annually in performance. This represents the hidden cost imposed by rigid adherence to index methodologies.

Non-index systematic funds from providers like Dimensional and Avantis often rebalance more frequently to maintain consistent factor exposure and avoid the crowd of index-driven trades. These funds accept small tracking errors in exchange for capturing more of the intended risk premiums and avoiding the rigid trading schedules that create costly bottlenecks.

Quantifying the impact: What these costs really mean

To understand the real-world significance of these hidden costs, consider the empirical evidence across different types of indices and markets:

Large-cap equity indices: For flagship indices like the S&P 500 or FTSE 100, hidden costs are relatively modest but non-negligible. Historical estimates suggest around 0.1-0.2% annually might be lost to index changes and implementation friction. Recent research indicates this may now be below 0.1% for the S&P 500 as index investing has become more efficient.

For a FTSE 100 tracker with a management fee of 0.07%, additional hidden costs might add another 0.05%, putting the total annual drag around 0.12%. While this sounds small, over 30 years, an extra 0.05% annual cost would reduce terminal wealth by approximately 1.5%.

Small- and mid-cap indices: The smaller and less liquid the underlying stocks, the larger the hidden costs become. The Russell 2000 historically suffered substantial drag (0.5% or more) from index turnover effects. UK mid-cap funds tracking indices like the FTSE 250 face similar challenges, potentially seeing total hidden costs of 20-50 basis points annually when including stamp duty effects.

Global and emerging market indices: Broad international index funds generally show modest hidden costs because large-cap developed markets dominate these indices. However, emerging market specialists often exhibit tracking differences exceeding 1%, much of which stems from transaction costs and taxes in less developed financial markets.

The compounding effect: While individual hidden costs might seem small, they compound over time. Consider a £100,000 investment over 30 years. An additional 0.1% annual cost would reduce final wealth by roughly £8,000. More substantial hidden costs of 0.3% annually would cost approximately £24,000 over three decades.

Recent estimates suggest the total value lost to front-running and implementation costs across all US index funds amounts to roughly £3 billion annually. While this represents a large absolute number, it translates to only about 4-6 basis points per year across the trillions invested (manageable for most long-term investors but worth understanding nonetheless).

The bigger picture: Context and perspective

These hidden costs must be viewed in context. Even after accounting for all implementation friction, passive strategies typically maintain substantial cost advantages over active management. The average UK actively managed equity fund charges 0.75-1.0% annually, while passive alternatives might cost 0.1-0.3% including hidden costs.

Active funds also face many of the same hidden costs (they too pay bid-ask spreads and market impact when trading) but amplified by much higher portfolio turnover. Studies suggest the average active equity fund spends 0.3-1.0% of assets annually on trading costs, compared to perhaps 0.1-0.2% for broad index funds.

The Financial Conduct Authority's Asset Management Market Study highlighted that many active funds delivered similar gross returns to passive funds before fees, meaning the cost difference largely explained their underperformance. This reinforces that while passive investing has hidden costs, they pale compared to the total cost burden of active management.

Regulatory changes have improved transparency around these costs. MiFID II regulations now require funds to disclose transaction cost estimates, revealing that some active funds have transaction costs of 0.3-0.5% annually while passive funds typically report much lower figures.

The rise of index investing has also spurred innovations aimed at reducing hidden costs. Providers like Vanguard and Dimensional have developed sophisticated trading algorithms and patient execution strategies to minimise market impact. Some fund companies now use alternate weighting schemes or more flexible rebalancing rules to avoid the most costly forced trades.

Conclusion: The price of simplicity

The hidden costs of passive investing represent what one might call "the price of simplicity and transparency." While index funds face implementation friction, tracking error, and the systematic costs of predictable trading, these remain modest compared to the alternative.

For most UK investors, a broad market index fund costing 0.1% in annual fees plus perhaps 0.05-0.15% in hidden costs still represents exceptional value. The total cost of 0.15-0.25% annually compares favourably to active alternatives that might cost 1-1.5% all-in.

Understanding these hidden costs helps set realistic expectations and can inform better investment decisions. Investors should look beyond headline fees to examine tracking differences when choosing between similar funds. They should understand that perfect replication of market returns is impossible and that small shortfalls are the inevitable result of real-world implementation.

Most importantly, these costs don't negate the case for passive investing (they simply remind us that no investment strategy is completely free of friction). The key insight is that passive strategies retain substantially more of the market's return for investors than the alternatives, even after accounting for all their hidden costs.

As passive investing continues to evolve, competition among providers and regulatory pressure for transparency will likely drive these hidden costs even lower. For now, they represent a modest but necessary cost of accessing broad market returns through simple, transparent investment vehicles.d that perfect replication of market returns is impossible and that small shortfalls are the inevitable result of real-world implementation.

Most importantly, these costs don't negate the case for passive investing (they simply remind us that no investment strategy is completely free of friction). The key insight is that passive strategies retain substantially more of the market's return for investors than the alternatives, even after accounting for all their hidden costs.

As passive investing continues to evolve, competition among providers and regulatory pressure for transparency will likely drive these hidden costs even lower. For now, they represent a modest but necessary cost of accessing broad market returns through simple, transparent investment vehicles.d that perfect replication of market returns is impossible and that small shortfalls are the inevitable result of real-world implementation.

Most importantly, these costs don't negate the case for passive investing — they simply remind us that no investment strategy is completely free of friction. The key insight is that passive strategies retain substantially more of the market's return for investors than the alternatives, even after accounting for all their hidden costs.

As passive investing continues to evolve, competition among providers and regulatory pressure for transparency will likely drive these hidden costs even lower. For now, they represent a modest but necessary cost of accessing broad market returns through simple, transparent investment vehicles.

Next time: What are the best ways to mitigate the hidden costs of passive investing?

PREVIOUSLY ON TEBI

Is Terry Smith genuinely skilled or did he just get lucky?

What the private equity industry doesn’t want you to see

Active fund fees: how inflated are they?

FIND AN ADVISER

The evidence is clear that you are far more likely to achieve your financial goals if you use an adviser and have a financial plan. That’s why we offer a service called Find an Adviser.

Wherever they are in the world, we will put TEBI readers in contact with an adviser in their area (or at least in their country) whom we know personally, who shares our evidence-based investment philosophy and who we feel is best able to help them. If we don't know of anyone suitable we will say.

We're charging advisers a small fee for each successful referral, but you will pay no more than you would if you contacted the adviser directly.

Need help? Click here.