Live data from Hacker News

Bogle Sounds a Warning on Index Funds

wsj.com

101–110 of 234 posts

Re: Bogle Sounds a Warning on Index Funds

#101

I work in this industry. I'm on the indexing side of it, not the ETF/fund side. We obviously have relationships with all the major fund providers, especially the three big names mentioned in the article. And I happen to work for the big dog - S&P. "Why? Partly because of two high barriers to entry: the huge scale enjoyed by the big indexers would be difficult to replicate by new entrants; and index fund prices (their…

I don't want to vote for each of the thousands of stocks I own indirectly through my index fund. I want Vanguard to vote on my behalf such that it proportionately replicates the votes of the non-index shareholders. This strategy is just an extension of the idea behind index funds in the first place: mirror the existing market.

Interesting idea. But you could never know in advance what the results of a vote would be. The only way to do this would be another alteration to law to allow such behavior. However, I am fairly certain this would violate the capital structure and foundational rules put in place by companies with regards to what constitutes a quorum, when/how voting is done, etc. Because companies are allowed to determine how things are done so this would be directly overriding that.

I suppose it's possible to construct a law that says companies can conduct their voting as they have been, but they must also allow/accept late "votes" from fund managers but the requirement is that those late votes must conform to the same proportions.

Re: Bogle Sounds a Warning on Index Funds

#102

Interesting. I've heard these warning signals before about index funds. Lets just hope index funds stay healthy for another say 60 years so i can fully utilize all the $$ I am dumping into the market now in my 20s. Please??

i thought an index fund's health depends on the health of the companies inside it. even if people decided they wanted to replace their index funds with direct stock purchases they managed themselves, the underlying value of the fund wouldn't change right?

Re: Bogle Sounds a Warning on Index Funds

#103
post #83

(Index) funds solve a problem that we shouldn't really have anymore. The problem is that (semi) manually trading securities is inherently expensive. Funds solve that problem by massively reducing the number of transactions that are required: 1000 people investing in a fund investing in 1000 companies needs 2000 transactions instead of the 1000000 transactions needed when 1000 people invest in 1000 companies directly.…

You would have to trade constantly. Moreover, most people probably don’t have the capital. You can’t buy a fraction of a stock, and since the S&P is market cap weighted you would need a lot of stock in order to do anything like the S&P 500

> You would have to trade constantly.

Really, you don't. If you want to track a market cap weighted index, you only need to trade when the index composition changes, which isn't that often.

But also, that's not exactly something that couldn't be automated, is it? That could be a service offered by banks: automatically keeping your portfolio matched to a particular index.

The point isn't that you should be doing the work of a fund yourself, the point is that you should directly own the stocks. For one because that means you have the voting rights, but also because that would make you less dependent on any particular company. If you are invested in some company's S&P500 ETF, the only way to switch to a different company managing your S&P500 investment is by selling the old one and buying the new one, which causes transaction costs and can have massive tax consequences. If it was just your bank managing the stocks held by you, you could just transfer them to a different bank and have them take over the management.

(And also, it would allow minimally "active" investing even within a passive framework: If your bank is managing your portfolio for you, it would be much easier to, say, exclude a particular stock. It would technically be trivial to implement "S&P500, but without Facebook", say.)

> Moreover, most people probably don’t have the capital. You can’t buy a fraction of a stock, and since the S&P is market cap weighted you would need a lot of stock in order to do anything like the S&P 500

That is one of those things that I meant by "practical problems". If you think about it, that isn't really a fundamental problem. There is no fundamental reason why stock ownership has to be organized as "shares" that represent a fixed, relatively large, share of the company. We could in principle move to a model where you can hold more or less arbitrarily small pieces of a company, including arbitrarily small pieces of voting rights. Why shouldn't it be possible to just buy 0.00000000687 pieces of Berkshire Hathaway A for a cent or so, to have legal ownership of that piece, and to have the voting rights for that piece? None of that is exactly difficult to do with computers.

There were practical reasons why doing things the way we do them made sense, back when shares were physical pieces of paper that you moved around physically. But it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense anymore given our current technology.

Re: Bogle Sounds a Warning on Index Funds

#104
post #41

I work in this industry. I'm on the indexing side of it, not the ETF/fund side. We obviously have relationships with all the major fund providers, especially the three big names mentioned in the article. And I happen to work for the big dog - S&P. "Why? Partly because of two high barriers to entry: the huge scale enjoyed by the big indexers would be difficult to replicate by new entrants; and index fund prices (their…

I find your comment fascinating but even though I think I understand perfectly what an index fund is, I don't quite understand what it is that S&P sells for so much money. Could you clarify this for me? I.e. who buys from you, and what is it they buy?

jkulubya's comment is largely correct. And you most likely do understand what an index fund is. It's just that most people don't realize there are two sides to the product - the theoretical and the real. The index is a theoretical product (intellectual property). The fund is the real-world implementation. A fund manager takes a look at one of our S&P products and says "I want to make a fund off this" and S&P contracts a license with them to allow it since S&P owns the IP on that index - it is S&P's design and methodology.

An easy way to think of this is the retail example where you pay an investment advisor. You pay them to manage your money but they place all the trades through some broker. S&P is the investment advisor and the fund manager is the broker.

Re: Bogle Sounds a Warning on Index Funds

#105
post #53
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's definitely a race to the bottom going on with the free Fidelity funds and Vanguard reducing the dollar minimum by 70% for a lot of admiral shares.

Yet another great example of "race to the bottom" benefiting consumers. Not sure why it's used in a negative way all the time.

Because eventually businesses wake up to the fact that they need to make money. And they do it by going the absurd route.

For example, online help is free but if you need to talk to a human being support, give us $10 a call or something. And while an average consumer might not be affected, people who are actually affected end up a nightmarish situation.

Re: Bogle Sounds a Warning on Index Funds

#106
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find your comment fascinating but even though I think I understand perfectly what an index fund is, I don't quite understand what it is that S&P sells for so much money. Could you clarify this for me? I.e. who buys from you, and what is it they buy?

I think the comment is referring to the canonical list of the constituent securities of an index such as the S&P 500 or DJIA. You pay license fees to S&P to name any fund you create “S&P XYZ Fund”. I suspect you could legally create a fund with the constituents of the S&P 500 without paying them, but you wouldn’t be able to advertise that fact easily.

You would not be able to legally recreate the 500 and just not use the name. We once had a problem within our Custom division (where clients retain the IP but pay us to do everything for them) and one client basically created something that was substantially similar in rules/methodology to another client's product and one client sued the other. Our employees were called to present testimony in court but it was settled before it got that far, presumably because the offending client realized they were going to get hammered.

Re: Bogle Sounds a Warning on Index Funds

#107
post #37

A bit click-baity, but the warning here from the father-of-index-funds is not that they've become a bad investment, but that their popularity is leading toward a handful of financial institutions holding controlling interests in most of the largest companies. Pretty interesting unitended consequence.

Why would that matter? If they are obligated by their funds' charters not to intervene, then all the governance decisions happen exactly as if they hadn't invested, right? 10% vs 90% of share votes being on auto-pilot shouldn't matter? Is the argument that the vast majority of them could change their funds' charter to allow them to be actively involved with governance? If so, that would be really hard to achieve even…

> then all the governance decisions happen exactly as if they hadn't invested, right? 10% vs 90% of share votes being on auto-pilot shouldn't matter?

If that was the case it would have been easy. Handful of people fighting for power.

But from what I can read the problem is exactly the opposite. As someone said below that Blackrock has been known to rubber stamp executive salary and maybe others follow suit. What is then stopping companies from going bigger and bigger on executive salary knowing that they will get rubber stamped from the funds?

What happens if there is a complex governance issue which requires vote and the index fund lack the motivation to ensure that they have weighed all the decisions correctly?

Re: Bogle Sounds a Warning on Index Funds

#108
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally, I have a few friends who work in the railroad industry and they are currently seeing something close to this. The company is almost entirely owned by large institutional funds. Union Pacific has a huge drive for constantly increasing efficiency. Their profits are up significantly year over year, but this fall they cut about 500 jobs from their headquarters in Omaha, around 6% of their Nebraska employees,…

I'm not entirely sure your conclusion is correct. Almost 40% of all US freight is moved via rail. The reason passenger trains suck in the US is because our railroads are built for and prioritized for freight. When Berkshire Hathaway purchased BNSF, they noted that trains connect companies between the two coasts of the US. It is often the case that a company that produces something is on one coast but the port where i…

Believe it or not, sometimes products are unloaded on one coast, transported by rail, then loaded on a ship on the other coast.

Re: Bogle Sounds a Warning on Index Funds

#109
post #99
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally, I have a few friends who work in the railroad industry and they are currently seeing something close to this. The company is almost entirely owned by large institutional funds. Union Pacific has a huge drive for constantly increasing efficiency. Their profits are up significantly year over year, but this fall they cut about 500 jobs from their headquarters in Omaha, around 6% of their Nebraska employees,…

The pressure to increase profits exists regardless of ownership, if anything having large institutional funds own the majority lessens the pressure (vs an activist fund or something similar). If they're leaving money on the table someone is going to take it.

Not really; you can look at BNSF (bought by Buffet) vs Union Pacific. Buffet takes the long view, as a result BNSF has been spending billions on capital projects and hiring.

Wall St is known for encouraging short-term thinking.

Re: Bogle Sounds a Warning on Index Funds

#110

A bit click-baity, but the warning here from the father-of-index-funds is not that they've become a bad investment, but that their popularity is leading toward a handful of financial institutions holding controlling interests in most of the largest companies. Pretty interesting unitended consequence.

> A bit click-baity, but the warning here from the father-of-index-funds is not that they've become a bad investment

I really doubt that he will ever come out and clearly say that they've become a bad investment.

But the insinuation is that going forward index funds might cause harm to public's interest. And law makers need to come up with laws to ensure that doesn't happen.

Post reply on HN