Most likely your investment horizon is not 5 years, therefore any 5 year data is futile. 5-year performance is a drop of water in the bucket. You should be more inclined to focus on the long-term out-performance of DFA funds over the respected indices. DFA does this through years of experience, utilizing unique trading techniques enabled by their flexibility.

I suspect your return over 10 years would not be greater if you were using Vanguard or iShares funds. First, you would have to maintain discipline. Secondly, you would not have as great of a small/value tilt as you would have through DFA. Research by Duke examines the value of using a DFA advisor: http://econ.duke.edu/Papers/PDF/Vanguard_Versus_DFA_30%20july_2007.pdf They find that it is worth it to hire an advisor. To see the value of an advisor vs. DIY, check this out: http://ariannacapital.blogspot.com/2010/09/advisors-really-can-help.html

Having said all that, as long as you can stick to your ETFs managed yourself, you are going to have less costs than by using an advisor. BUT most people tend to change their minds over and over again. So be careful. I’m not saying stick with DFA and I’m not saying switch to doing it yourself – the choice is yours. But from what I am reading your understanding is not 100% of what makes DFA “DFA”. Having said that, if you have a better time understanding ETFs and doing it yourself, then perhaps that is all that matters and that route may be best for you.

Good luck in whatever you decide to do.

All DFA’s funds fall below the corresponding index benchmarks as the MSCI EAFE, Russell 3000, and Russell 1000 for each of the Class A, F and I funds. I have the Class F funds.

The annual compound returns compared were 5 years and over.

I believe your response was directed at my portfolio’s actual actual asset allocation compared to the indices I’ve indicated but that was not the means of my comparison.

So I believe the benchmarks I was provided in 2006 related to the US funds and not the more recently started Canadian dimensional funds.

Perhaps with the similarity of the other indices I would have minimized my costs and maximize my returns in the future by purchasing those on my own.

Well it seems I am a slow learner. It took me too many years to realize the insanity of the typical mutual fund, you were paying top dollar for lesser returns 80% of the time.

Better to go with the higher odds.

By tilting towards having more small/value stocks in your portfolio you would be expected to have an outperformance over a long period of time. A few years is not enough time for these factors to play out.

You either have to review what you are trying to accomplish with these funds and ask your advisor to provide material for you to understand how they work, or switch to managing your own portfolio. But don’t necessarily fall into the trap of assuming that it didn’t work or didn’t do what it’s supposed to, because it is. You just weren’t given the proper expectations.

Good luck in whichever route you take! :)

But a recent literature I see that fund performances for 5 years and more clearly indicating underperformace to the Russell 1000 and 3000, MSCI EAFE Indices.

Clearly what I saw in 2006 was the US fund performance and the more recent was Canadian fund performance.

This is somewhat disappointing as I would have better returns for a lower cost in managing indices on my own.

So to answer your question, I think they will be around for quite some time, but I agree – people do not understand fundamental indexing and the theory very well.