Live data from Hacker News

Bogle Sounds a Warning on Index Funds

wsj.com

151–160 of 234 posts

Re: Bogle Sounds a Warning on Index Funds

#151
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even without index funds the drive towards large portfolios and diversification would do the same thing. I'd go so far as to say that unified ownership of competing firms by large investors is just unhealthy in general. Not really sure what can be done about it though since many companies are rather multi-industry.

Well the idea of an index, whether done through a fund or not, is to buy some of each company. A value investing approach would be to find the better stock and invest in it, so Coke stockholders would rarely own Pepsi stock and vice versa.

Still, even without index funds, the first thing most people are told is that diversification is key and that sector allocation matters more than the specific companies you hold. Plus people want to mitigate risk, so they buy a little of each thing that matches whatever profile, and soon a sector essentially has unified ownership interests rather than competitive (and antagonistic) ownership interests.

Re: Bogle Sounds a Warning on Index Funds

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Believe it or not, sometimes products are unloaded on one coast, transported by rail, then loaded on a ship on the other coast. That is surprising, since shipping by water is dramatically cheaper than any other form of surface shipping, even factoring the extra distance to sail down to the Panama Canal. What's the point of adding the land leg?

Maybe because the canal is too small? Prior to the opening of the new locks in 2016, the largest container ship that could fit through the Panama Canal was pretty small by modern standards. And even with the new locks opened some ships still have to go around the horn.

Re: Bogle Sounds a Warning on Index Funds

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to upvote your comment because I don't think it deserves to be downvoted, and at the time of writing it's grayed out for me. That being said - you're incorrect about about competition between active investors and HFT. That's a common misconception. HFT primarily occupies a marketing making role, which means they try to play both sides of the spread very quickly for a very, very small profit on each trade. T…

HFT is basically a tax on each transaction that gets applied because you don't have as accurate a view of the market as the guy who is down on the wire. If you're strategically buying shares in a company and holding them then HFT is not your competitor. If you're a day trader trying to flip stocks by holding them for a couple of seconds at a time HFT is why you're bankrupt. But it's also not true that HFT folks creat…

Your second and third paragraphs are incorrect.

Day traders flipping stocks every few seconds won't lose money because of HFT firms, they'll lose money because of trading fees. Trading every few seconds is a wildly unrealistic strategy for most people to pursue on their own. On an average, per-trade basis the fees associated with buying and selling are several orders of magnitude higher than the profit margins of any HFT strategy. The only way your fees will even come close to the profit margins of an HFT are if your volume is such that you've become a market maker yourself. This is a very basic and fundamental tension that precludes HFT from being a competitive force to other traders engaging in speculation and investing.

Your final paragraph strikes me as ideologically bent, particularly with your use of the word "leech." It's an uncontroversial fact that HFT firms facilitate market making. HFT firms do sit on shares and offer them for sale. Most often they do this quickly, but occasionally they have holding times with longer horizons. What's more important than the turnaround time is the low latency with which they execute orders. Definitionally, HFT is engaging in market making because when someone wants to purchase a share, an HFT is ready to sell it to them. Likewise when someone wants to sell a share, an HFT is ready to buy it from them. This is quite literally, "making a market."

In point of fact, your hypothetical day trader would not be capable of buying shares every few seconds if it weren't for HFT (inadvisable though it may be). How do you propose they'd achieve the same kind of liquidity otherwise? By calling a broker? There are far fewer market makers than there are active investors. Passive investing activity with index funds also dwarfs the scale of HFTs. The straightforward conclusion that follows is that fewer, faster parties must exist to make markets for the many, comparatively slower investors.

This is an extremely well-studied subject; when you peel back the pomp and PR about HFT as an industry, you'll encounter an incontrovertible reality. There is no way to service modern trading activity happening every second without the HFT activity that happens every microsecond. By calling that latter activity "leeching", you read more like someone delivering an opinion rather than a cogent, well-informed and substantive criticism.

Re: Bogle Sounds a Warning on Index Funds

#154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like a different kind of problem though. If funds that vote according to the recommendations of the board own >50% of the company, the board becomes unaccountable. (Unless they apply different rules to board elections, but then we're back to the original problem because the minority activist can elect their own board.)

This seems to be mostly in keeping with the spirit of index funds. It's a hands off approach that lets the company run itself. In theory an index fund should never own that much of a company, because that means it would own >50% of all publicly traded companies. The whole point is to spread the risk evenly so you can realize the average returns without having to put any thought into it. It shouldn't mean it's buying…

But if all the index funds together own >50%, and they all go with the board, then it's the same as if it was a single company that went with the board.

Re: Bogle Sounds a Warning on Index Funds

#155
He didnt mention Federal Thrift program which is like five giant index funds of five asset classes. I dont think they have any activism. But some top federal official could polticize them like you-know-who who often disparages individual companies and perhaps ask for the sale of a large amount of stock.

Re: Bogle Sounds a Warning on Index Funds

#156

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.

Index-funds also have a huge risk: as they become too large, they become distorting how pricing of companies work: i.e. just IPO'ing gets you purchasers. At some point, the phrase "passive management > active management" will become verifiably false.

This. I haven't heard anybody talking about this before, but it seems like there's an unavoidable tipping point here. I wonder if we've already reached it. Rightly or wrongly I trust my stock picking over an index fund now. At least I can take responsibility for the outcome.

Re: Bogle Sounds a Warning on Index Funds

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hijacking trucks filled to the brim with sensors sounds like a recipe for jail time. The logistics of stopping and looting a truck involves too many parties, and ensuring that each party is following enough security protocols to not be identified via face, vehicle, or gait will ensure that only a few small sophisticated heists will ever be successful.

> ...filled to the brim with sensors... Has someone actually worked out that tons of sensors will cost far less than people-driven trucks? As it is, fuel is the big cost, followed by driver salary [1]. L5 autonomous driving is not going to come cheap, that gear is going to price as close to 3X driver salary as they can get away with, on the assumption they can run close to around the clock. Whose margin is getting co…

The average truck driver earns about $70k a year. Even assuming that the sensor suite costs as much as an entire Tesla Model S(which in addition to a sensor suite includes an actual car), the system will pay itself back in a year.

Also once automated, the trucks can engage in all sorts of hyper-miling shenanigans since they don't have to worry much about traffic during a significant part of their 24/7 operation, especially on more remote roads. That's additional fuel savings.

Re: Bogle Sounds a Warning on Index Funds

#158
post #77
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The risk is because index funds don't do stock analysis (instead they buy and hold all stocks) they will invest in bad companies and prop their price up. Then when the bad company goes bankrupt (as everyone paying attention knows will happen) the index funds are left holding all the stock suddenly worth nothing. Which is to say the traditional more expensive managed funds that actually pay attention to the fundamenta…

This is not exactly true. Many (most?) indices are market cap weighted, so if a company’s stock is tanking (i.e, their market cap proportional to other tickers in the index is going down), the index will sell the shares. In my view, index funds aren’t really passive at all, they are crowdsourcing the best ideas of active management. This is why many indices (like S&P 500) produce pretty good returns. If you created a…

[deleted]

Re: Bogle Sounds a Warning on Index Funds

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Believe it or not, sometimes products are unloaded on one coast, transported by rail, then loaded on a ship on the other coast. That is surprising, since shipping by water is dramatically cheaper than any other form of surface shipping, even factoring the extra distance to sail down to the Panama Canal. What's the point of adding the land leg?

Because if you're in Kansas, there is no water route to the Pacific Ocean?

Re: Bogle Sounds a Warning on Index Funds

#160

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.

Index-funds also have a huge risk: as they become too large, they become distorting how pricing of companies work: i.e. just IPO'ing gets you purchasers. At some point, the phrase "passive management > active management" will become verifiably false.

It takes a long time and after IPO before useful indexes pick you up.
Post reply on HN