Live data from Hacker News

“Buy and Hold” No More: The Resurgence of Active Trading

a16z.com

251–260 of 327 posts

Re: “Buy and Hold” No More: The Resurgence of Active Trading

#251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, just like there are individual stocks that beat the market. How do you pick them? The same way you picked your passive index fund: look at 20-30+ years of data. Unfortunately, VTI, VT, VOO all underperform the top hedge funds, when evaluated over 20 years (risk adjusted return, downside deviation, and absolute return). I’d go further back but VTI was created in 2001 whereas the hedge funds were created in 1980…

I picked S&P because it's one of a handful of widely reported indices and it was created roughly in the same era as the original vanguard index fund, not by cherry-picking data. Your statement that major index funds all underperform the top hedge funds is tautological, of course the ones that beat the averages are the top funds. What I'm genuinely curious is: how many hedge funds were there in 2001 and how would you…

Simple: don't be poor and know people (/s).

The other important question is whether a retail investor can join it. I know someone like baobabKoodaa [1] would shout from the rooftops, "You're moving the goalposts, grandparent, waaaaaaaaaaah!" Well, I'm not grandparent, so my goalposts are completely different from theirs.

My goalpost is whether a retail investor like me can get in on those high-flying funds. If not, then in the retail universe, they may as well not exist. Thus, I'm better off investing in VTI/VXUS and using the rest of my spare time coming up with some funny ways to challenge my party in a D&D one-shot.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=baobabKoodaa

Re: “Buy and Hold” No More: The Resurgence of Active Trading

#252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your use of theory and terms is right but you aren't visualizing how it would work in the world where nearly everyone is passive. Simplest example I cited already: it becomes obvious that company X will default in short order, but it's a member of an index and the market will "buy" it anyway: I can short it (by borrowing from the passives and selling it to them next time they buy the index) and never have to…

In your hypothetical 99.9% passive scenario that doesn't work either because passive funds have long ago disallowed borrowing their stocks to short. If you start with a ~100% passive premise the reality is so different to what a normal market looks like you can't just propose a normal strategy and expect any of it to work.

Hi, I'm not sure I follow this idea that passive investors don't lend their shares. Is that meant to describe the hypothetical world of no active traders, as discussed above, or is it meant to describe the present situation in the investing world today?

In the world as it stands today, passive ETFs and index mutual funds are a huge source of shares to lend. It's one of the ways they can lower the cost of the passive fund (or slightly increase returns above the passive benchmark), as the proceeds from lending shares are returned to investors in the fund. (Not always, but the good ETF operators do this.)

Re: “Buy and Hold” No More: The Resurgence of Active Trading

#253

One thing active trading does is subject you to much higher short term tax rates. You'll also lose a bit on the spread every time you trade, even with zero commission brokerage fees. The longest stock I've held is Boeing (40 years).

unless you're trading in an IRA

Of course (though the spread will still hurt).

But there's a limit on how much you can contribute to an IRA. A serious investor will find the IRA contribution limits make it inconsequential. You also wouldn't want to fund the IRA with money you'll need before 65.

Re: “Buy and Hold” No More: The Resurgence of Active Trading

#254
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not arguing the opposite, but I’m very interested in learning more about this. Can you suggest some references?

A reference (that lays out the statistical arguments) is "Common Sense on Mutual Funds" by John Bogle.

Thanks

Re: “Buy and Hold” No More: The Resurgence of Active Trading

#255
post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the companies who use debt to buyback their shares are whats driving the market. Every dollar they spend on their stock is then magnified 100x by the big passive funds, and both 1 & 2 have no agency other than to try to get swept up in the winds. I've always found stock buybacks intriguing and confusing. Here's a hypothetical scenario that seems to go against what you're saying: Company A buys back $1 work of stock.…

market cap = book value + discounted future cash flows = share price * number of outstanding shares When you do a buyback, the book value drops (company loses cash), but the discounted future cash flows remains unchanged. The number of outstanding shares also drops. The net result is the stock price increases as a company accumulates cash and uses it for buybacks because the number of outstanding shares drops. Anothe…

Market cap = whatever the market decided at that time, and is determined by offer and demand.

The whole book value + discounted future cash flow does not reflect the real stock exchange at all. If that was the case no investor would want share buybacks because as you say it would only reward the ones who sell...

When taking into account offer and demand stock buybacks make more sense: the buyback increase the demand for the stock. The offer will increase a bit (a few might sell) but not in the same proportion because the offer is not very elastic (most of your investors are in for a long ride and are not going to sell), so the price goes up, you get rid of some short term investors, and the long term investors see their share increasing in value. Everybody's happy and the dividend ratios do not mean anything anymore.

Re: “Buy and Hold” No More: The Resurgence of Active Trading

#256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What 3 ETFs do you invest on?

SCHB, SCHF, and SCHE. That's a bit of an oversimplification because I do have some other assets I've picked up over the years. But the bulk of my net worth is invested in those 3. If I were to start over again I might even just hold SCHB, which I feel has enough international exposure to make SCHF and SCHE somewhat redundant, while also being more efficient for taxation purposes.

As a Canadian, I have a similar stance: the US stock market provides enough intl diversification.

Canada has a lot of resource companies which largely follow the global economy.

Most big corps have less than half of their sales in US.

Developed markets still pay with a visa/MasterCard and have iphones. Or the US owns a stake in their local equivalent. Or Amazon is expanding there.

Truly emerging markets barely have a stock market, but their citizens probably eye a Coca Cola, have an intel PC and an android phone doing searches on Google.

Re: “Buy and Hold” No More: The Resurgence of Active Trading

#257
post #230
post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If assets perform poorly then how will the annuity be funded?

The issuer funds it. It’s like an insurance policy. They’re contractually obligated to meet the terms (if the benefit is defined)

Presumably if the market was bad enough there would be a point where the issuer couldn't meet the terms.

Re: “Buy and Hold” No More: The Resurgence of Active Trading

#258

The only issue I take with this article is their seemingly blase take on the risky investing behavior of Gen Z. Sure, if that's the lay of the land then use it to your advantage. But it seems a bit predatory. Risky activities tend to hurt more investors than they help, and lead to a small number of big winners and many losers. You can't just increase risk and increase reward for everyone. Regarding the predicament Ge…

>demographics is working against asset values in the next twenty years or so

I can't find the link now but I saw a recent paper that showed retirees aren't really spending down their investments in old age. Rather many of them will end up with more when they finally fall off their perch.

Re: “Buy and Hold” No More: The Resurgence of Active Trading

#259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your hypothetical 99.9% passive scenario that doesn't work either because passive funds have long ago disallowed borrowing their stocks to short. If you start with a ~100% passive premise the reality is so different to what a normal market looks like you can't just propose a normal strategy and expect any of it to work.

Hi, I'm not sure I follow this idea that passive investors don't lend their shares. Is that meant to describe the hypothetical world of no active traders, as discussed above, or is it meant to describe the present situation in the investing world today? In the world as it stands today, passive ETFs and index mutual funds are a huge source of shares to lend. It's one of the ways they can lower the cost of the passive…

If passive funds made this tradeoff then how would they be influenced by a company going bankrupt? They would just change the tradeoff when that becomes a problem since this is not part of the passive investment strategy.

Re: “Buy and Hold” No More: The Resurgence of Active Trading

#260
post #217

Frankly, I think passive investing has ruined the fundamentals of investing and in part responsible for the poor financial health of our economy. While the idea behind passive investing may seem like a good one, people often forget it's a double edge sword. By this I mean, when you invest into an ETF or index fund, that money in turn goes into everything underneath it. All too often that money isn't invested in the u…

I'll be honest. What you said is so oversimplified that it cannot be possibly the only factor. Sure there might be a misallocation factor but as others have said, active traders benefit from this.

How do active traders make money? Easy, they make money off of volatility and volatility increases as the market size increases. So greater passive share means more profit potential for active traders.

What is even the function of a trader? A trader is providing liquidity so that buyers and sellers can get fair prices for the thing they want to buy. Who are buyers and sellers? People who believe in the company or in the case of an index fund, people who believe in the index and expect it to net a return in the future. If there are not enough active traders then index funds will pay unfair prices and that is a loss for the index fund.

Now lets get to the meat of your post, zombie companies or rather low productivity companies are a function of interest rates and interest rates are set by the market and usually they are set based on inflation + desired margin. Inflation is low, or at least not high enough, so interest rates are relatively low. The Fed does control the interest rates to some extent but it does so for inflation targeting. However most of the time the Fed rate is slightly above the actual market rate, this is especially the case with negative interest rates where a lot of central banks want to stay above 0% if it is feasible. If inflation goes up the Fed will normalize the interest rates.

High interest rates are a barrier to companies with low returns. If your company makes a 2% return every year and your interest is 3% you will go out of business. If your company makes losses and obtains a 0%-1%% loan then it can stay afloat thanks to the debt.

Now the obvious problem is, if the Fed is doing everything it can to increase inflation and subsequently raise interest rates then why on earth do we see very low inflation? If interest rates are lower than inflation it means everyone (including foreign entities) is putting their money into savings. After all, if people spent it on consumer goods it would drive up prices and therefore inflation. So it isn't going there.

Actually, there is a way for consumer spending to increase savings. China is running a trade deficit by pegging their currency to the yuan. This means the government just outright buys USD so you can exchange them for yuan and the government stockpiles the USD in US treasury bonds. In my opinion they do this because China has an aging population, it's basically a retirement fund, when China is doing poorly they are hoping the US economy is doing well.

Ok, China (and pretty much everyone exporting in USD) is saving. Who else is saving? Retirement funds. The US has an aging population that puts money aside for retirement. It also has a retirement motto that everyone is supposed to save for themselves so even the working population is putting money aside. Rich people save a disproportionate percentage of their salary. They simply cannot spend all of it because they are simply that rich. Think of Bill Gates. A lesser effect also applies to city dwellers in top cities. They get paid a lot more than the countryside. Think of all the people on HN with stock compensation or people on HN who put their excess money into stocks. This portion is growing bigger over time. Automation plays into savings as well. Higher productivity means you can put more money into capital via machines that merely consume electricity instead of spending your money on workers who must consume food and water.

If everyone is saving and nobody is spending then how are workers supposed to get paid for their work? It's clearly impossible, unless that money is being invested and new jobs are being created. This is why people shouldn't put money under a mattress or why we don't want deflation. It will cause unemployment. Give it to your bank and your bank will give it to a company that creates jobs. But since interest is so low or in theory negative (banks don't pass negative interest on) the banks are basically telling you that they don't want your money and you should put it elsewhere.

Enter the stock market and housing market. Low yields in conventional markets (bank accounts, treasury bonds, mortgage bonds, etc) cause investors to flee these markets and enter riskier markets. They will spend it on stocks instead, they will also spend it on housing directly. That's where all those speculators that don't want to rent the house out come from. They aren't looking for a good investment, they are looking for an investment that isn't worse than conventional assets.

It's almost as if we have run out of good investments.

Post reply on HN