To some extent, it's just a matter of supply and demand. Because so many people are investing passively, inclusion in an index with highly traded ETFs can cause huge demand for a stock that no one would have particularly cared about otherwise. There are tons of examples of this around the Russell indices, but stocks in most popular indices carry higher multiples than similar companies outside of them. There is also what George Soros called reflexivity - this increase in stock price makes it more likely that your business will survive because it makes financing the business easier. A large market cap both means you can issue shares cheaply, and it makes banks more likely to lend to you. That helps the business stay alive, but it doesn't necessarily improve their underlying business. Without anyone fundamentally evaluating these companies, such situations can persist indefinitely. Short selling is also made hard by the heavy demand created by additional inflows to these indices. Even if you identify a mispriced company, its continued inclusion in the index might prevent the price action that would remedy the situation.
In the end, I don't think this is the end of the world, but there is the old saying that bad money drives out good. This kind of mania makes it hard for normal feedback mechanisms to function appropriately. The most direct costs will be born by those who invest in such instruments, but it also adds greatly to the correlation of the markets, since price movements are now implicitly tied to inflows of money from markets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law
Apparently, to call the saying old is an understatement. Quote from Wikipedia:
> The law was named in 1860 by Henry Dunning Macleod, after Sir Thomas Gresham (1519–1579), who was an English financier during the Tudor dynasty. However, there are numerous predecessors. The law had been stated earlier by Nicolaus Copernicus; for this reason, it is occasionally known as the Gresham–Copernicus law.[3] It was also stated in the 14th century, by Nicole Oresme c. 1350,[4] in his treatise On the Origin, Nature, Law, and Alterations of Money,[5] and by jurist and historian Al-Maqrizi (1364–1442) in the Mamluk Empire;[6] and noted by Aristophanes in his play The Frogs, which dates from around the end of the 5th century BC.
1. list of stocks changes less frequently
2. the list is public
3. less trading
There's nothing preventing an "active" manager from behaving in the same/similar manner.
Whereas passive index funds' concepts are much simpler. E.g. all companies that are this large.
This gets summed up as "less trading", but is really just trading on simpler criteria.
I'd be really curious to hear from someone in the area about the opposite -- what keeps passive funds (in the "no human" sense) from behaving more like active funds, with targeted, complex investment concepts?
If I wanted to start an algorithmically traded fund, cut my expense ratio by not having to pay humans, are there legal barriers currently standing in the way?
If that's the case it should drive most fund managers out of business since most of them don't beat the S&P over time.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/27/active-fund-managers-rarely-...
And as more money gets funneled to index funds, the vanguards and fidelitys of the world could lower fees on their index funds which should put even more pressure on most fund managers which could create a vicious cycle. Maybe we'll be left with just index funds and a handful of rock star fund managers.
The best asset managers charge low fees, they make up for it very comfortably in volume and long term holdings. Warren Buffet famously doesn't sell, he doesn't need to make thousands of deals a year to eke a small profit from each, he needs to judiciously pick fewer things that are going to do well in the long term. All too often people don't want to properly invest however, they want to speculate.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3247356
Also, I'd like to note, it probably depends on the maturity of the market you're looking it. It will probably be harder to beat passive investing in US fixed income than frontier economies equities.
Edit to add: A few big & cheap index funds and a couple of rock star active managers sounds good to me, actually.
1. Everyone wants to make money.
2. People will look for the best way to make money.
3. If enough people are in index funds, the best way is to go active. If enough people are active, it is best to do index funds. Therefore we’ll have an equilibrium where it doesn’t matter too much which you choose (as long as you’re reasonably smart not to get ripped off).
This statement is potentially confusing because it depends on what the word "average" is referencing.
If we're talking about _all_ investors's returns including active and passive investors, the S&P 500 index has historically provided above average returns[1]. The math allows the S&P 500 index to be above average because so many investors lose money. Think of the unsophisticated investors losing money on the bitcoin crash, or buying Snapchat at $27 last year and selling it today at $8, or trying naive strategies at day trading. And most mutual funds, hedge funds, and VC funds also provide lower returns than the S&P 500. All those money losers mathematically "bring the average down" such that the S&P500 ends up providing above average returns. This "better than average" performance of S&P 500 is why Warren Buffet confidently bet that the passive index would beat the hedge fund managers at Protégé Partners.[2]
On the other hand, S&P 500 index is often a proxy for "market average" also sometimes called "beta" or "benchmark return". The distinction is that "market average" is a different concept from "all investors' average". This means that "market average" has turned out to be "above average" which sounds like a contradiction but the math of including all the money losers shows it isn't.
[1] https://medium.com/@akshay_m/stock-market-gives-you-above-av...
[2] https://www.google.com/search?q="s%26p+500"+index+warren+buf...
the true market return is unknowable because it has to include both public and private offerings, and by definition, we can't know (in most cases) the returns on private investments, such as fine art and the like.
that's why we use the S&P 500 (or another index) as a proxy for the market return to calculate a security's beta. we don't have enough historical data to truly know how good of a proxy the S&P is (we'd need hundreds of years of data for that, iirc), but most studies consider the margin of error acceptable for research purposes.
edit: and in the long run, you can't beat the market (unless you have consistently good insider info).
For extant index funds there are trading costs and tracking error. The more correlated the markets become, the more index funds are going to be liquidity takers (paying to trade) and the further fund performance will fall behind the indices they're supposedly tracking.
However you can design any kind of index fund for any kind of market. Many other indices aside from the S&P 500 exist which are more or less passive depending on the process and criteria used for inclusion.
Since no index has absolutely no fees, it's considered acceptable to state that indices return an average of some sort of market - with the proviso that it's actually slightly less fees and costs.
EDIT: Based on your reply to a sibling commenter it seems like you're taking issue with the claim that indices tracking a market can't be beaten by active investing in that market. I agree; to wit: that's not a defensible claim without assuming EMH, as you say elsewhere. But that doesn't change the fact that indices (ostensibly) return an approximate average of a market.
The index itself defines the average (it's the benchmark that all funds use to measure performance), so a fund perfectly tracking the index has almost zero alpha. The "almost" is whatever fees the index fund charges, which lead the funds returns to be slightly below the average if they otherwise track perfectly.
Edit: Just to add, by the above definition, where you take the total return on the index as the average, most investors do significantly worse than average, a few do a lot better than average and investors in index funds make almost exactly the average.
GP might be trying to argue that alpha generation is a zero-sum game, but alpha and beta are notoriously slippery concepts. If you want to define beta as the index return, I think you're going to have a hard time convincing me that alpha is zero sum without assuming the EMH or something similar.
Alpha is zero sum because the total return of the market is the total return of the market. So the money-weighted average return to stockholders must equal the money-weighted average growth of stocks.
This is a mathematical fact. Let’s say you do better than the market because you deviate from the market weights. For each position that you have, relative to the market, there is someone somewhere that holds the complementary position. Because the agregate of all the positions is the market portfolio, by definition.
Now think of a world where passive funds dominates investments and very few active funds survive. Now the market cap variance increases and small changes induced by active funds gets hugely amplified by passive funds. For example, a hedge fund may decide to liquidate their position on XYZ due to random reason and can trigger 1% change in price (because active funds willing to buy might not be high in number). This then immediately changes market cap and all passive funds will rush to liquidate as well which will tank that company. This obviously can be gamed by clever active funds.
As more and more investment becomes passive, I think the ROI for those investors reduces significantly compared to active investors. I am working on theory part for this. If anyone is interested, please feel free to email me.
I don't know if Sears received a lot of index funding but I'm sure TGT did. It's day of judgment came last summer. AAPL is next. It will take years, but you can only screw customers secretly for so long.
Something something, don't bet the farm.