And if passive funds cause poor allocation of capital, that will increase the returns of smart active investing - a negative feedback on pure passive investing.
The problem is that the value of the components of the index is heavily tilted by peoples perception of the value of the index, and not the values of the components.
Wouldn't agree with you because a company that can return a higher rate of return on capital than one that can't get an allocation based on market cap.
Index funds are good. They are a way of saying "I don't know how best to allocate capital, i'll leave it to the professionals who do, and simply capture the market return for myself". Ideally, most money will be managed by index funds, and a small pool of extremely efficient money managers (some mix of quant and discretionary) will manage a comparatively small pool of capital that actually determines the prices of everything. There is nothing bad about this. This is the way all economic activities become more efficient.
That is essentially affirming the authors take on the story though, is it not? If it is really preferential for investors and society at large to follow the signal of professional managers, than in the future this might even be further consolidated by advances in tech, and the result will simply be a rationally managed system that allocates capital by planning or design, rather than through numerous 'amateur', active market participants who act on spontaneous price mechanisms.
I also don't see anything intrinsically wrong with this, but funnily enough it does seem to imply that the title of the article is correct
yes, but i would just amend your prelude to "i'll leave it to professionals to allocate my capital efficiently...". some folks might know how to calculate an efficient portfolio, but may not want to manage such a thing (tracking dozens/hundreds of equities and adjusting periodically).
interestingly, like other industries, there's a tension between available surplus and efficiency in finance. the less money siphoned off by active fund managers, the more efficient the market.
This is an asinine argument that seems to be driven by the belief that there is such a thing as efficient allocation of capital in the real world. Or perhaps just sour grapes that some of the unsophisticated investors they like to take advantage of are instead putting their money index funds.
It's certainly not true that "what makes sense for investors" is any meaningful indication of what makes a good policy for a society as a whole, and I rather think it's usually the opposite.
> Indexing is cheaper, yes, but that's because active management has positive externalities, and if no one will pay for it, those benefits will disappear.
Indexing can be active. Particularly when it comes to exchange-traded funds. There are many to choose from which mix different equities in different amounts. You can invest by particular sectors, or geographically or whatever.
Choice of investment instruments in the financial market (some of them automated) is just capitalism at work.
Funny how when a factory is automated, the financiers call that capitalism. When their own jobs are automated, it's suddenly communism.
The author of the article seems to think that their performance on the capital market is the only thing that determines a company's success. But if companies lose money on the actual market they serve with the products they produce, they're still losing money compared to the company that makes a profit, and they are still at risk of going bankrupt.
The capital market may be important, but it's not what it's really about. It's not the actual market. It's just a facilitator. At best.
> There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today. What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state - Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do. We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable by-laws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that perfect world in which there's no war or famine, oppression or brutality. One vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock, all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused.
Capitalism is earning from capital. So Index funds are in fact pure capitalism.
Potentially they can benefit the less wealthy as much as the wealthy. For some, alike that feels innately wrong. And any fiscal equalizer always feels communist even if it results from free markets.
Index funds can also potentially benefit the fiscally naive as well as the savvy. But if this is the objection then it is cherry picking: the same parties rarely object to inheritance which benefits unsophisticated investors on a vastly larger scale.
[+] [-] kbutler|7 years ago|reply
And if passive funds cause poor allocation of capital, that will increase the returns of smart active investing - a negative feedback on pure passive investing.
[+] [-] jl2718|7 years ago|reply
Unless the money supply is stable, and then only dividends matter. Right now, they hardly matter at all.
[+] [-] TylerE|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sfcguyus|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darawk|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Barrin92|7 years ago|reply
I also don't see anything intrinsically wrong with this, but funnily enough it does seem to imply that the title of the article is correct
[+] [-] clairity|7 years ago|reply
interestingly, like other industries, there's a tension between available surplus and efficiency in finance. the less money siphoned off by active fund managers, the more efficient the market.
[+] [-] imbriaco|7 years ago|reply
Maybe both.
[+] [-] hartator|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ajkjk|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robotbikes|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kazinator|7 years ago|reply
Indexing can be active. Particularly when it comes to exchange-traded funds. There are many to choose from which mix different equities in different amounts. You can invest by particular sectors, or geographically or whatever.
Choice of investment instruments in the financial market (some of them automated) is just capitalism at work.
Funny how when a factory is automated, the financiers call that capitalism. When their own jobs are automated, it's suddenly communism.
[+] [-] mcv|7 years ago|reply
The capital market may be important, but it's not what it's really about. It's not the actual market. It's just a facilitator. At best.
[+] [-] empath75|7 years ago|reply
Network, 1976
[+] [-] decebalus1|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thoughtstheseus|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jwildeboer|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elango|7 years ago|reply
With micro-seconds investing by bots and algo, it has become more of gambling than investing.
[+] [-] Svoka|7 years ago|reply
Are investment advisors/managers charlatans performing on average worse than random?
Yes.
[+] [-] TomMckenny|7 years ago|reply
Potentially they can benefit the less wealthy as much as the wealthy. For some, alike that feels innately wrong. And any fiscal equalizer always feels communist even if it results from free markets.
Index funds can also potentially benefit the fiscally naive as well as the savvy. But if this is the objection then it is cherry picking: the same parties rarely object to inheritance which benefits unsophisticated investors on a vastly larger scale.
[+] [-] elango|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hcjfhchchxxyx|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ceejayoz|7 years ago|reply
> ... an almost entirely serious claim from Sanford C. Bernstein & Co....
Ah. The folks selling high-fee actively managed funds don't want you to buy from Vanguard.