Live data from Hacker News

Hidden Dangers of the Great Index Fund Takeover

bloomberg.com

51–60 of 96 posts

Re: Hidden Dangers of the Great Index Fund Takeover

#51

This is such a fascinating problem. On the one hand Jack Bogle's invention of the index fund has been so good for retail investors but because the process currently requires a middle man - i.e. one of the big three - these index funds have slowly become bloated with power. What if the algorithm Vanguard uses was open sourced and could be self-hosted by independent investors? Where each investor owns their portfolio o…

It is "open sourced"...you can go to any index provider, and they will tell you what is in the index...you realise that there is no complex "algorithm", it is just a market-cap weighted index (and even then, you can replicate the perf of these indexes with 10-20 stocks).

And this has already been invented. It is called hub-and-spoke, you generally see this with small CTAs and the like where there is a central portfolio with trades mirrored into separate accounts...it works but it is unnecessary, and costly. Another example of is are those awful portfolio mirroring services (eToro is one I think).

Btw, the thing that you are saying is "free" is where all the cost is. Yes, it would be great if everything was just "free" and people would do things for me for no money...but that isn't realistic. Some companies do just provide the "investment" side without all the low-level trading/account management/customer-facing stuff but it usually isn't attractive to do so for individual investors...this is basically what the big pension fund consultants do.

Marketing to individual investors is utterly hellish. It is expensive and the money you obtain is usually pretty worthless. If you are actually have investment talent, it is a terrible financial decision. You can spend hours pitching for pocket change with retail investors or you can make the same in a few seconds with an institution.

Re: Hidden Dangers of the Great Index Fund Takeover

#52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just described M1 Finance (custom funds users can construct). Google Warren Buffett’s Long Bet about passive vs active fund management (he won the passive argument). Even sophisticated active investors are having a tremendously difficult time achieving passive returns net fees. If you’re not a sophisticated investor, I’d implore you to be cognizant of the challenges you’ll face attempting active investment strate…

There are other use cases than returns, sometimes it has to do with availability of funds or tax issues that constrain the possibilities. Even something as simple as the full spectrum of risk tolerances and time-horizons isn't well served by existing index retirement funds (they all skew to be highly risky and equity focused). It's better to have the running of an index fund be a separate service from the selection o…

[deleted]

Re: Hidden Dangers of the Great Index Fund Takeover

#53

This is such a fascinating problem. On the one hand Jack Bogle's invention of the index fund has been so good for retail investors but because the process currently requires a middle man - i.e. one of the big three - these index funds have slowly become bloated with power. What if the algorithm Vanguard uses was open sourced and could be self-hosted by independent investors? Where each investor owns their portfolio o…

I think there are a handful of problems with this post, one of them being that index funds are already in many ways "open source." Re: their investment choices the investments that go into an index are chosen by the creator of the index which is separate from the investment house. The investment company MUST simply follow the index and trade as the index indicates. The tracking accuracy may vary slightly between Vang…

Isn’t one of the concerns that index funds are supposed to mimic the index’s returns, but absolutely aren’t required to track the index holdings?

If absolute rebalancing was required in an S&P 500 index fund, there would not be enough liquidity in the market for some of the smaller of the 500.

It’s all been fine and well during a bull market, but a concern is that “index” funds have huge amounts of synthetic holdings that are untested in a rout.

Re: Hidden Dangers of the Great Index Fund Takeover

#54

Isn't it possible for the index funds to simply not wield the power they have, and abstain from every vote? I was surprised that funds that are not actively managed are still actively engaging with public companies.

No. The point of owning a share is that you own part of a business. But, functionally, this isn't what index funds are doing. They employ next to no-one with any actual investment ability (from what I have seen, they employ an unusually high number of people with political connections/bank "product" types).

The problem is that this isn't really what the stock market is for. It has been turned into this infinite liquidity machine where ownership churns rapidly when the "point" is owning a business, stewardship of your asset, slow turnover (there isn't an easy solution because this is largely a supply situation, if you create a savings system that is based on the value of the stock market...it is hard not to end up here).

Btw, the issue with corporate governance is far broader than this too. Even before index funds, the system was totally fucked. You had boards stocked full of know-nothings with no stake in the company. Managers were already totally unaccountable, now even more so (this is why activism is taking off, the level of corporate waste/overpaying for executives is staggering).

Re: Hidden Dangers of the Great Index Fund Takeover

#55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no brokerage fees anymore. But fractional share ownership is not widely popular and would require an aggregator anyway.

Are you aware of a firm that offers free trading in fractional shares?

Robinhood announced that and you can request early access to it in the app right now. And yes, it is commission free too.

Re: Hidden Dangers of the Great Index Fund Takeover

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no brokerage fees anymore. But fractional share ownership is not widely popular and would require an aggregator anyway.

Are you aware of a firm that offers free trading in fractional shares?

Square cash?

https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/24/20930659/square-cash-app...

Re: Hidden Dangers of the Great Index Fund Takeover

#57

This is such a fascinating problem. On the one hand Jack Bogle's invention of the index fund has been so good for retail investors but because the process currently requires a middle man - i.e. one of the big three - these index funds have slowly become bloated with power. What if the algorithm Vanguard uses was open sourced and could be self-hosted by independent investors? Where each investor owns their portfolio o…

> What if the algorithm Vanguard uses was open sourced and could be self-hosted by independent investors?

It already is "open sourced". Vanguard precisely discloses what's in each of their funds already [0].

The issue with independent investors perfectly replicating the securities underlying the index funds is that the vast majority of investors simply don't have enough capital to replicate the underlying components of the fund. Meaning, the typical investment amount of a randomly chosen investor cannot buy enough shares in proportion to each other to be as diversified as a massive $100+ billion fund. That's before discussing the issues with maintaining a balanced portfolio.

> Where each investor owns their portfolio outright and adjustments to the portfolio are made automatically by a free index manager bot that runs the simple algorithm an index fund manager like Vanguard would.

If you had enough capital and trusted such a bot enough, it's not hard. But the vast majority of people will never have enough capital.

[0]: See about 40% of the way through this PDF for the securities behind Vanguard's Total Stock Market Index Fund: https://personal.vanguard.com/funds/reports/q850.pdf?2210151...

Re: Hidden Dangers of the Great Index Fund Takeover

#58
post #23
post #10

The extremely simple and correct solution here is to not let index funds themselves vote. Only allow the votes to be cast directly by the index share holders. Problem solved, I don't know why people keep hand wringing about this and not suggesting the supremely obvious solution here.

> The extremely simple and correct solution here is to not let index funds themselves vote. Only allow the votes to be cast directly by the index share holders. Problem solved, I don't know why people keep hand wringing about this and not suggesting the supremely obvious solution here. Something like create a super-voting share class for active investors and regular stock for the index funds? https://en.wikipedia.org…

An interesting idea, but not appropriate in this instance. Super-voting stock are basically a polite way of retaining control while not appearing to own a majority of shares.

They don't preserve the right incentive structure and remove escape valves the regular stock holders should enjoy. I thought the original idea here is to let the index investors direct the fund how to vote with their portion of the index's stock. A pretty neat idea that de-fangs much of the incentive risk if the index fund management goes rogue or an activist investor tries something.

Re: Hidden Dangers of the Great Index Fund Takeover

#59

This is such a fascinating problem. On the one hand Jack Bogle's invention of the index fund has been so good for retail investors but because the process currently requires a middle man - i.e. one of the big three - these index funds have slowly become bloated with power. What if the algorithm Vanguard uses was open sourced and could be self-hosted by independent investors? Where each investor owns their portfolio o…

Wow! Thanks for all the replies. Glad other people found this silly idea interesting.

A lot of the issues that were brought up have to do with fees associated with purchasing all the stocks and the fact that you would have to buy very small fractional shares. Certainly big issues today but they don't sound like showstopper problems to me.

And to the folks criticizing my lazy use of the term "open source" - I apologize. I should know better using that phrase on hacker news!

To clarify: clearly the market weighted index process is a well known and very simple algorithm. What I meant by "open source" was a tool that can employ that market weighting process and handle all of the financial transactions necessary to execute all of the trades.

Re: Hidden Dangers of the Great Index Fund Takeover

#60
I think at some point we'll hit a saturation point on passively managed funds. What they're really doing is edging out the non profitable actively managed funds, and forcing managers to prove they can beat the market if they want investment. I also think we'll see more brokerages starting their own indices, which will lessen the power of any individual fund
Post reply on HN