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.
Bogle Sounds a Warning on Index Funds
151–160 of 234 posts
Re: Bogle Sounds a Warning on Index Funds
#152Earlier 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?
Re: Bogle Sounds a Warning on Index Funds
#153Earlier 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…
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
#154Earlier 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…
Re: Bogle Sounds a Warning on Index Funds
#155Re: Bogle Sounds a Warning on Index Funds
#156A 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.
Re: Bogle Sounds a Warning on Index Funds
#157Earlier 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…
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
#158Earlier 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…
Re: Bogle Sounds a Warning on Index Funds
#159Earlier 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?
Re: Bogle Sounds a Warning on Index Funds
#160A 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.