The Money Mustache Community
Learning, Sharing, and Teaching => Investor Alley => Topic started by: J Boogie on February 04, 2019, 04:07:09 PM
-
Trying to get an idea of what mustachians think about the growth of indexing and if it will affect their future investing strategy.
Logically we can infer that more stock picking opportunities will arise as more investors move their assets into passive funds.
Or do folks here believe that index funds create markets with equal or greater efficiency than a market with greater active investing?
-
I expect there will always be people managing orders of magnitude more assets than I will ever have snapping up every stock picking opportunity before I can find them.
-
I chose never.
Not because I think allocating some percentage to single issue picks is a patently terrible idea -- I don't -- it's just that I am too lazy in my advanced years to devote the time necessary to trying to do it competitively.
Indexing is just too easy to do for me to contemplate any other method, so I have a don't-fix-it-if-it-aint-broke kind of an attitude. ;)
-
I don't particularly enjoy spending the substantial amount of time it would take to become an above-average stock picker (would rather be doing something else) and if it ever became easy there would be such an enormous amount of money to be made that it soon wouldn't be easy anymore.
plus - indexing provides me with what i need for near-zero effort.
ETA: Just because someone indexes doesn't mean they are limited to the SP500 or total market indexes. If one is so inclined he/she can buy index funds that track a single country, region or sector.
-
I'd rather do something that I find fun, enriching, or that might benefit the world.
-
My DH mentioned that maybe he wants to start investing some in individual stocks. I said that indexing is much safer and that a random person is not good at timing the market for normal stocks. I said he should only play with a very small amount, if he wants to do this, as I can't stop an adult person from investing his own money in what he wants.
-
Trying to get an idea of what mustachians think about the growth of indexing and if it will affect their future investing strategy.
Logically we can infer that more stock picking opportunities will arise as more investors move their assets into passive funds.
Or do folks here believe that index funds create markets with equal or greater efficiency than a market with greater active investing?
If there isn't an active market in the stocks within the fund, look out below! I tend to disagree with your conclusion. You can have too much of a good thing.
-
I'd say what ever percentage you feel comfortable with up to and including never.
TLDR: Stick with indexing, unless you really want to take you time to learn stock picking.
I personally invest in individual stocks AND in ETFs. So I put my money where my mouth is.
Personally whenever a question like this comes up, I have to ask why? If you are comfortable with investing in indexes, why do you want to figure out stock picking? Don't get me wrong I've done my time, I've learned lots (and lost some here and there as a reminder) and I enjoy still it but I would rarely recommend that people do it.
If you want to learn, pick amount your willing to lose and learn. Note you may or may not lose it pending your research and particular branch of stock picking you choose, though I recommend Buffets brand, Value stocks.
It will take time to figure out your set of rules and yes, I said rules, and you'll be fine. Your rules will become a part of your IPS and you WILL stick with them, though they might evolve over time as you learn. It's just the nature of the game.
So I ask again, if your comfortable with indexing, why pick stocks?
-
Logically we can infer that more stock picking opportunities will arise as more investors move their assets into passive funds.
Why is this logical?
-
I can follow the logic that if enough investors invest blindly, the market's efficiency at ensuring reasonable capital allocation could decline. I can get that individual stock picking could offer an advantage in that case. But will it make enough difference to be worth the time spent?
I read the Jack Bogle speculated shortly before he died that the tipping point would be around 70%. Up to that level, he thought the market would be reliable. I don't expect to change anything until at least that point. As a 50something, that means probably never.
Probably.
-
I'd say what ever percentage you feel comfortable with up to and including never.
TLDR: Stick with indexing, unless you really want to take you time to learn stock picking.
I personally invest in individual stocks AND in ETFs. So I put my money where my mouth is.
Personally whenever a question like this comes up, I have to ask why? If you are comfortable with investing in indexes, why do you want to figure out stock picking? Don't get me wrong I've done my time, I've learned lots (and lost some here and there as a reminder) and I enjoy still it but I would rarely recommend that people do it.
If you want to learn, pick amount your willing to lose and learn. Note you may or may not lose it pending your research and particular branch of stock picking you choose, though I recommend Buffets brand, Value stocks.
It will take time to figure out your set of rules and yes, I said rules, and you'll be fine. Your rules will become a part of your IPS and you WILL stick with them, though they might evolve over time as you learn. It's just the nature of the game.
So I ask again, if your comfortable with indexing, why pick stocks?
Thanks for asking!
I have become less and less comfortable with indexing because I don't want to invest in subpar companies whose prices have been driven up by monetary policy.
An economic downturn separates the wheat from the chaff. I want to develop an IPS to be able to withstand and even thrive during an economic downturn.
I don't take it for granted that "the stock market always goes up." This phrase was coined long before the Fed's balance sheet had 4 trillion dollars on it. I think "past results do not guarantee future performance" is a better saying to keep in mind.
Even great investing minds like Bogle have mentioned that we should expect returns of around 4%. I'm not excited about 4% and I am happy to do research and invest in companies with far more upside on a buy and hold basis.
-
Logically we can infer that more stock picking opportunities will arise as more investors move their assets into passive funds.
Why is this logical?
There's a finite amount of money available to be invested. If nearly all of this money is funneled through indexes, stock pickers will be able to invest in companies like Amazon without having to pay the high price we see these days. That high price is mostly due to the demand of active investors who believe it is worth more than Sears. The more Sears and Amazon both receive investment inflows on an automatic rather than discriminating basis, the more of a bargain winners like Amazon will be.
Do you disagree with this premise?
-
Logically we can infer that more stock picking opportunities will arise as more investors move their assets into passive funds.
Why is this logical?
There's a finite amount of money available to be invested. If nearly all of this money is funneled through indexes, stock pickers will be able to invest in companies like Amazon without having to pay the high price we see these days. That high price is mostly due to the demand of active investors who believe it is worth more than Sears. The more Sears and Amazon both receive investment inflows on an automatic rather than discriminating basis, the more of a bargain winners like Amazon will be.
Do you disagree with this premise?
I disagree with this premise - here's why.
Even if 80% of all the money in the market were held in index funds, that would leave 20% that's actively managed, or roughly $1T in the NYSE alone. That's a crap ton of money. If a large company like Amazon (or really anything on the SP500) isn't priced appropriately the hedge-fund managers that are still around will exploit that, and the edge will soon evaporate. They'll buy on margin and have an oversized effect on setting prices. In other words, market efficiencies will remain because there's still a huge amount of money involved.
-
There's a finite amount of money available to be invested. If nearly all of this money is funneled through indexes, stock pickers will be able to invest in companies like Amazon without having to pay the high price we see these days. That high price is mostly due to the demand of active investors who believe it is worth more than Sears. The more Sears and Amazon both receive investment inflows on an automatic rather than discriminating basis, the more of a bargain winners like Amazon will be.
Do you disagree with this premise?
This is the same flawed logic of why we need to tax the rich more because they're screwing the rest of us. But it misses that one of the biggest advantages of capitalism is that as the rich get richer, so too do the middle class and poor.
The financial world is not a zero sum game. There isn't one pie of finite pieces.
-
Logically we can infer that more stock picking opportunities will arise as more investors move their assets into passive funds.
Why is this logical?
There's a finite amount of money available to be invested. If nearly all of this money is funneled through indexes, stock pickers will be able to invest in companies like Amazon without having to pay the high price we see these days. That high price is mostly due to the demand of active investors who believe it is worth more than Sears. The more Sears and Amazon both receive investment inflows on an automatic rather than discriminating basis, the more of a bargain winners like Amazon will be.
Do you disagree with this premise?
I disagree with most of it. If anything, our system has shown it will never allow itself to run out of liquidity. As far as indexing affecting stock prices, has there been any indication that one affects the other? Index investing is steadily growing, but P/Es have been on the rise just the same. I agree that somebody on the active institutional investor side would continue to be the main price-setter for a stock, but unless you're arguing the market is speculating the hell out of companies I don't see how a mass of index investors are going to depress prices. The stock is still getting bought and sold. If you've got data saying otherwise I'd be happy to read it.
-
There's a finite amount of money available to be invested. If nearly all of this money is funneled through indexes, stock pickers will be able to invest in companies like Amazon without having to pay the high price we see these days. That high price is mostly due to the demand of active investors who believe it is worth more than Sears. The more Sears and Amazon both receive investment inflows on an automatic rather than discriminating basis, the more of a bargain winners like Amazon will be.
Do you disagree with this premise?
This is the same flawed logic of why we need to tax the rich more because they're screwing the rest of us. But it misses that one of the biggest advantages of capitalism that that as the rich get rich, so too do the middle class and poor.
You still believe in trickle-down economics? It hasn't worked for many decades now, why would it start working going forward? If that *actually* worked, these super low tax rates should've been the tide to "lift all boats". Instead, wealth concentration continues to pool at the top in the US. The idea that the money trickles down when taxes are low has no basis in reality. None. We have the lowest tax rates and also the greatest disparity in wealth (https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality/) in the developed world. It's not a coincidence. I have no idea how anyone could believe in this, except because it personally benefits them. So at least be honest about it. You don't want higher taxes because it will personally affect you. That's fine, but don't pretend like super low tax rates help the poor or middle class, because all evidence points to the contrary.
-
There's a finite amount of money available to be invested. If nearly all of this money is funneled through indexes, stock pickers will be able to invest in companies like Amazon without having to pay the high price we see these days. That high price is mostly due to the demand of active investors who believe it is worth more than Sears. The more Sears and Amazon both receive investment inflows on an automatic rather than discriminating basis, the more of a bargain winners like Amazon will be.
Do you disagree with this premise?
This is the same flawed logic of why we need to tax the rich more because they're screwing the rest of us. But it misses that one of the biggest advantages of capitalism that that as the rich get rich, so too do the middle class and poor.
You still believe in trickle-down economics? It hasn't worked for many decades now, why would it start working going forward? If that *actually* worked, these super low tax rates should've been the tide to "lift all boats". Instead, wealth concentration continues to pool at the top in the US. The idea that the money trickles down when taxes are low has no basis in reality. None. We have the lowest tax rates and also the greatest disparity in wealth (https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality/) in the developed world. It's not a coincidence. I have no idea how anyone could believe in this, except because it personally benefits them. So at least be honest about it. You don't want higher taxes because it will personally affect you. That's fine, but don't pretend like super low tax rates help the poor or middle class, because all evidence points to the contrary.
It's also worth noting that money payed out in taxes also doesn't 'disappear,' which is a key underpinning of the lower-taxes argument, second only to the mantra of 'transfer of wealth!'
-
As a thought experiment, if 100% of the stock market was owned by total market index funds (or there was a law saying this was the only investment allowed), there would be no volatility between shares. E.g. if Apple went up 1%, GM would also go up exactly 1%. If TSLA fell 0.5%, the whole market would be down 0.5%. All shares would have a beta of one. This is because inflows and outflows could only occur within the entire block of the total market index. Also, the relative weighting of any given company within the index could never change. Microsoft would always be X% of the size of Exxon no matter what happened in their futures. Without a market for individual stocks, there would be no way for their prices to deviate from each other as people preferred to own one or the other. They would forever be equal weighted, aside from splits and new issues.
Drop that percentage to 99% and see what happens. A tiny marketplace emerges, perhaps as big as the stock market decades ago.
People start trading Microsoft and Exxon against each other after earnings or news are announced, easily taking piles of cash from index investors until an equilibrium is reached whereby the individual traders account for enough trading volume to move the price. At that equilibrium, the benefits of stock picking equals the cost of asystematic risk, and stock picking has the same yield as index investing. When trades by active investors exceed the threshold, the index investors start taking piles of cash from active traders, on net. This second scenario is what has been happening for the last few decades, and I suspect the threshold exists at a very very low volume of active trading. So 99% should have been an option.
-
You still believe in trickle-down economics? It hasn't worked for many decades now, why would it start working going forward? If that *actually* worked, these super low tax rates should've been the tide to "lift all boats". Instead, wealth concentration continues to pool at the top in the US. The idea that the money trickles down when taxes are low has no basis in reality. None. We have the lowest tax rates and also the greatest disparity in wealth (https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality/) in the developed world. It's not a coincidence. I have no idea how anyone could believe in this, except because it personally benefits them. So at least be honest about it. You don't want higher taxes because it will personally affect you. That's fine, but don't pretend like super low tax rates help the poor or middle class, because all evidence points to the contrary.
I'm not talking about trickle down economics, I'm talking about capitalism. Capitalism has raised the rest of the world out of poverty.
Yes, the rich are getting richer. But because it's not a zero sum game, everyone else is getting rich along with them.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DxSZ58_XQAAoxM8.jpg)
-
You still believe in trickle-down economics? It hasn't worked for many decades now, why would it start working going forward? If that *actually* worked, these super low tax rates should've been the tide to "lift all boats". Instead, wealth concentration continues to pool at the top in the US. The idea that the money trickles down when taxes are low has no basis in reality. None. We have the lowest tax rates and also the greatest disparity in wealth (https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality/) in the developed world. It's not a coincidence. I have no idea how anyone could believe in this, except because it personally benefits them. So at least be honest about it. You don't want higher taxes because it will personally affect you. That's fine, but don't pretend like super low tax rates help the poor or middle class, because all evidence points to the contrary.
I'm not talking about trickle down economics, I'm talking about capitalism. Capitalism has raised the rest of the world out of poverty.
Yes, the rich are getting richer. But because it's not a zero sum game, everyone else is getting rich along with them.
...and yet taxation has co-existed with democracy and capitalism for over two centuries. So... what's your point?
-
You still believe in trickle-down economics? It hasn't worked for many decades now, why would it start working going forward? If that *actually* worked, these super low tax rates should've been the tide to "lift all boats". Instead, wealth concentration continues to pool at the top in the US. The idea that the money trickles down when taxes are low has no basis in reality. None. We have the lowest tax rates and also the greatest disparity in wealth (https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality/) in the developed world. It's not a coincidence. I have no idea how anyone could believe in this, except because it personally benefits them. So at least be honest about it. You don't want higher taxes because it will personally affect you. That's fine, but don't pretend like super low tax rates help the poor or middle class, because all evidence points to the contrary.
I'm not talking about trickle down economics, I'm talking about capitalism. Capitalism has raised the rest of the world out of poverty.
Yes, the rich are getting richer. But because it's not a zero sum game, everyone else is getting rich along with them.
...and yet taxation has co-existed with democracy and capitalism for over two centuries. So... what's your point?
The financial world is not a zero sum game. There isn't one pie of finite pieces.
The OP's thesis assumed there is finite money in the world.
-
The OP's thesis assumed there is finite money in the world.
I think the OP's thesis assumed that investment opportunities occur when too low a % of investors distinguish between high and low quality stocks by investing actively. I don't think that necessarily requires finite money.
-
There's a finite amount of money available to be invested. If nearly all of this money is funneled through indexes, stock pickers will be able to invest in companies like Amazon without having to pay the high price we see these days. That high price is mostly due to the demand of active investors who believe it is worth more than Sears. The more Sears and Amazon both receive investment inflows on an automatic rather than discriminating basis, the more of a bargain winners like Amazon will be.
Do you disagree with this premise?
This is the same flawed logic of why we need to tax the rich more because they're screwing the rest of us. But it misses that one of the biggest advantages of capitalism that that as the rich get rich, so too do the middle class and poor.
You still believe in trickle-down economics? It hasn't worked for many decades now, why would it start working going forward? If that *actually* worked, these super low tax rates should've been the tide to "lift all boats". Instead, wealth concentration continues to pool at the top in the US. The idea that the money trickles down when taxes are low has no basis in reality. None. We have the lowest tax rates and also the greatest disparity in wealth (https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality/) in the developed world. It's not a coincidence. I have no idea how anyone could believe in this, except because it personally benefits them. So at least be honest about it. You don't want higher taxes because it will personally affect you. That's fine, but don't pretend like super low tax rates help the poor or middle class, because all evidence points to the contrary.
I don't believe it's only tax policy. Correlation is not causation. For example, the immense amount of currency the Fed dumped into the economy Post 2008 hasn't cause price inflation of products or services. This money ended up inflating asset prices. Those who owned assets already (rich people) have seen the greatest gain from their inflation. Wealth disparity is also logically highly linked to income disparity. Globalization has caused the US economy to evolve into high tech service based. This has caused a huge income disparity between elite tech workers (most on this board) and production workers. Both of these issues have nothing to do with tax rates and are arguable much larger factors in the wealth disparity in the US.
-
As a thought experiment, if 100% of the stock market was owned by total market index funds (or there was a law saying this was the only investment allowed), there would be no volatility between shares. E.g. if Apple went up 1%, GM would also go up exactly 1%. If TSLA fell 0.5%, the whole market would be down 0.5%. All shares would have a beta of one. This is because inflows and outflows could only occur within the entire block of the total market index. Also, the relative weighting of any given company within the index could never change. Microsoft would always be X% of the size of Exxon no matter what happened in their futures. Without a market for individual stocks, there would be no way for their prices to deviate from each other as people preferred to own one or the other. They would forever be equal weighted, aside from splits and new issues.
Drop that percentage to 99% and see what happens. A tiny marketplace emerges, perhaps as big as the stock market decades ago.
People start trading Microsoft and Exxon against each other after earnings or news are announced, easily taking piles of cash from index investors until an equilibrium is reached whereby the individual traders account for enough trading volume to move the price. At that equilibrium, the benefits of stock picking equals the cost of asystematic risk, and stock picking has the same yield as index investing. When trades by active investors exceed the threshold, the index investors start taking piles of cash from active traders, on net. This second scenario is what has been happening for the last few decades, and I suspect the threshold exists at a very very low volume of active trading. So 99% should have been an option.
Except that not all companies are in the index, and some are in more indices than others. Increased indexing means those companies outside of the largest held indices may have more potential value... No?
-
An economic downturn separates the wheat from the chaff. I want to develop an IPS to be able to withstand and even thrive during an economic downturn.
Would you be interested in investing in noncorrelating assets classes and or equities with index investing?
-
An economic downturn separates the wheat from the chaff. I want to develop an IPS to be able to withstand and even thrive during an economic downturn.
Would you be interested in investing in noncorrelating assets classes and or equities with index investing?
With several qualifications that rule almost everyone out, gold could be considered as an asset that has low (or negative) correlations with stocks and even bonds during crashes. But now back to the qualifications:
1. people saving for retirement are better off without it. If stocks drop in a crash... buy more. Until you've saved enough, protecting what you have severely limits it's growth (since gold grows much slower than diversified stock portfolios).
2. gold as a non-correlating asset requires going beyond "stocks and bonds", and paying enough attention to correlation to form a different portfolio based on it. Some years ago I went through past crashes and observed how gold performed against stocks and bonds. That at least made it interesting: gold tended to move up when stocks crashed. Gold could be used to decrease the volatility of a portfolio: you could sell gold to pay for living expenses, or rebalance into stocks. I don't think most people pay attention to correlation, but performance.
3. gold's performance isn't as good as a diversified portfolio of stocks, so the opportunity cost is high. An allocation to gold means a chunk of a portfolio not allocated to stocks, which brings down performance long-term. For those in retirement with very low withdrawal rates, maybe avoiding drops in portfolio value matters more than a hit to performance.
So for the most part, I don't see people come close to meeting those qualifications, so I don't recommend it.
-
An economic downturn separates the wheat from the chaff. I want to develop an IPS to be able to withstand and even thrive during an economic downturn.
Would you be interested in investing in noncorrelating assets classes and or equities with index investing?
Probably not. In addition to a decent return during a recession, I am also uncomfortable with the reasons we embrace indexing.
We don't really use any solid logical justification as to why it is better, we tend to use the same logic as the older employees in the companies we work at - We do it this way because this way has always been superior no matter what any fancy new person says. It just works. This type of thinking always holds up until it doesn't. We're not in the same financial world anymore, so I'm not willing to take these platitudes for granted anymore.
If you don't take the time to think about why your strategy works now and why it will work in the future, you don't have a good plan. I'm trying to come up with a plan that logically rather than historically has a very good chance at 6%+ annual returns, and hopefully be able to achieve limited loss during recessions.
My issue with index investing as a philosophy is that assumes too many things. I don't completely disagree with the assumptions that the stock market always goes up and that it can be very risky to pick individual stocks, but I certainly don't hold them as gospel and as a thought experiment I want to come up with some conditions that could falsify these assumptions.
-
An economic downturn separates the wheat from the chaff. I want to develop an IPS to be able to withstand and even thrive during an economic downturn.
Would you be interested in investing in noncorrelating assets classes and or equities with index investing?
With several qualifications that rule almost everyone out, gold could be considered as an asset that has low (or negative) correlations with stocks and even bonds during crashes.
I didn't suss out that you might be thinking of precious metals, but if that's what you were thinking of, my answer is no.
I don't like gold. Just because other people want it when shit hits the fan doesn't mean I do. It's one thing to pay a premium for a company that shows it might generate fantastic returns in the future; it's entirely another to pay far beyond the industrial value of a commodity simply because others do. If the system crashes, I'd rather own shares of a forest or lumber mill or a bunch of lumber in a shed in my yard. What can I say, wood is an honest material and it makes me happy.
-
Logically we can infer that more stock picking opportunities will arise as more investors move their assets into passive funds.
Why is this logical?
There's a finite amount of money available to be invested. If nearly all of this money is funneled through indexes, stock pickers will be able to invest in companies like Amazon without having to pay the high price we see these days. That high price is mostly due to the demand of active investors who believe it is worth more than Sears. The more Sears and Amazon both receive investment inflows on an automatic rather than discriminating basis, the more of a bargain winners like Amazon will be.
Do you disagree with this premise?
I disagree with this premise - here's why.
Even if 80% of all the money in the market were held in index funds, that would leave 20% that's actively managed, or roughly $1T in the NYSE alone. That's a crap ton of money. If a large company like Amazon (or really anything on the SP500) isn't priced appropriately the hedge-fund managers that are still around will exploit that, and the edge will soon evaporate. They'll buy on margin and have an oversized effect on setting prices. In other words, market efficiencies will remain because there's still a huge amount of money involved.
But you agree with the premise that there is *less* efficiency when a greater share of the market is held in index funds, right?
I get that there's still a ton of active $ left to pick stocks even at 80% passive. But the fact that there's less should correlate to less efficiency, right?
I think margin buying will begin to lower as regulation gets passed forcing these banks and their principals to suffer the 100% of the impact from the losses they incur via margin trading.
-
Logically we can infer that more stock picking opportunities will arise as more investors move their assets into passive funds.
Why is this logical?
There's a finite amount of money available to be invested. If nearly all of this money is funneled through indexes, stock pickers will be able to invest in companies like Amazon without having to pay the high price we see these days. That high price is mostly due to the demand of active investors who believe it is worth more than Sears. The more Sears and Amazon both receive investment inflows on an automatic rather than discriminating basis, the more of a bargain winners like Amazon will be.
Do you disagree with this premise?
I disagree with most of it. If anything, our system has shown it will never allow itself to run out of liquidity. As far as indexing affecting stock prices, has there been any indication that one affects the other? Index investing is steadily growing, but P/Es have been on the rise just the same. I agree that somebody on the active institutional investor side would continue to be the main price-setter for a stock, but unless you're arguing the market is speculating the hell out of companies I don't see how a mass of index investors are going to depress prices. The stock is still getting bought and sold. If you've got data saying otherwise I'd be happy to read it.
I think there is a finite amount of money able to be invested. Yes, the Fed flooded the markets with liquidity and can do so at anytime - but they won't. The Fed can do some impressive shit to smooth things out, but they can't do magic. There does exist a point in time where they don't have a trick up their sleeve. They can only print as much money as is responsible. Just because that's a fudgable number doesn't mean it's not finite.
-
As a thought experiment, if 100% of the stock market was owned by total market index funds (or there was a law saying this was the only investment allowed), there would be no volatility between shares. E.g. if Apple went up 1%, GM would also go up exactly 1%. If TSLA fell 0.5%, the whole market would be down 0.5%. All shares would have a beta of one. This is because inflows and outflows could only occur within the entire block of the total market index. Also, the relative weighting of any given company within the index could never change. Microsoft would always be X% of the size of Exxon no matter what happened in their futures. Without a market for individual stocks, there would be no way for their prices to deviate from each other as people preferred to own one or the other. They would forever be equal weighted, aside from splits and new issues.
Drop that percentage to 99% and see what happens. A tiny marketplace emerges, perhaps as big as the stock market decades ago.
People start trading Microsoft and Exxon against each other after earnings or news are announced, easily taking piles of cash from index investors until an equilibrium is reached whereby the individual traders account for enough trading volume to move the price. At that equilibrium, the benefits of stock picking equals the cost of asystematic risk, and stock picking has the same yield as index investing. When trades by active investors exceed the threshold, the index investors start taking piles of cash from active traders, on net. This second scenario is what has been happening for the last few decades, and I suspect the threshold exists at a very very low volume of active trading. So 99% should have been an option.
Interesting take. Thanks for providing this breakdown and engaging in this thought experiment with me.
It seems you and most others share the view that the threshold exists at a very very low volume of active trading.
To be honest, I have a tough time following your logic (I don't mean this to insinuate you're wrong, this is just abstract stuff that can be tough to fully grasp).
Can someone explain why they believe a dramatic increase in the ratio of passive investing vs active would not affect the efficiency of the stock market very much? Why is the threshold at 99%?
-
3. gold's performance isn't as good as a diversified portfolio of stocks, so the opportunity cost is high. An allocation to gold means a chunk of a portfolio not allocated to stocks, which brings down performance long-term. For those in retirement with very low withdrawal rates, maybe avoiding drops in portfolio value matters more than a hit to performance.
The Trinity study and most other withdraw rate studies did not simulate portfolios with a PM allocation. PMs earn zero, and decades of earnings are what retirees eventually need to survive. Therefore, if a person wanted a 10% PM allocation, for example, I'd suggest the remaining 90% of their portfolio which is allocated to stocks and bonds should cover at least 25x expenses. I'd suggest the same if they insisted on a large cash-in-mattress allocation, or a large art allocation, recreational acreage, whole life policies, etc.
The PM allocation would reduce volatility, but so what? By wanting that lower volatility, IMO you've created the requirement that your portfolio be 10% larger. So for a retiree who needs a $40k income, your minimum required FIRE portfolio just grew from $1,000,000 to $1,100,000. Would you be willing to sacrifice an extra two years of your life earning that extra $100k just to have coins in a safe or GLD in your brokerage account? Just to reduce the size of the zig zags you see on Mint.com's net worth graph? I'll take my chances but YMMV.
-
You still believe in trickle-down economics? It hasn't worked for many decades now, why would it start working going forward? If that *actually* worked, these super low tax rates should've been the tide to "lift all boats". Instead, wealth concentration continues to pool at the top in the US. The idea that the money trickles down when taxes are low has no basis in reality. None. We have the lowest tax rates and also the greatest disparity in wealth (https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality/) in the developed world. It's not a coincidence. I have no idea how anyone could believe in this, except because it personally benefits them. So at least be honest about it. You don't want higher taxes because it will personally affect you. That's fine, but don't pretend like super low tax rates help the poor or middle class, because all evidence points to the contrary.
I'm not talking about trickle down economics, I'm talking about capitalism. Capitalism has raised the rest of the world out of poverty.
Yes, the rich are getting richer. But because it's not a zero sum game, everyone else is getting rich along with them.
...and yet taxation has co-existed with democracy and capitalism for over two centuries. So... what's your point?
The financial world is not a zero sum game. There isn't one pie of finite pieces.
The OP's thesis assumed there is finite money in the world.
There is. In Econ 101 we learn that the we are studying the relationship between limited resources and unlimited demand.
Yes, money can always be printed. But when that power is abused, the money ceases to be valuable. Many nations experience this and quickly realize they don't have unlimited money even if it looks like they do on paper.
-
Can someone explain why they believe a dramatic increase in the ratio of passive investing vs active would not affect the efficiency of the stock market very much?
Because by definition, passive investing doesn't change the price of any particular stock. Therefore the price of individual stocks is affected by the active investors, even if only a small % of the investors are active.
Presumably the active investors will work out among themselves what a reasonable price for each particular stock is. Therefore the market as a whole will be reasonably balanced among the various component stocks. In other words, the active investors still bring knowledge to the table, and the sum of that knowledge is reflected in the relative price of the stocks. That is basically the definition of an efficient stock market.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/efficientmarkethypothesis.asp
-
Never.
Here's the thing......if most everyone indexed, then if we go on a limb and say that active traders could take advantage of inefficiencies, guess what? The guys with supercomputers and nanosecond trading times will take your lunch money. You'll be there thinking....hmmm, do I like Amazon or microsoft today. You make the trade and you're wrong because the guy on the other side of the trade has a $100M computer with a better algorithm than your gut and you lose. Then you decide to get out of this and put money in Tesla instead and that machine eats your lunch and kicks you in the groin just for the fun of it. You lose.
I don't kid myself that I could ever beat the market. The end.
-
But you agree with the premise that there is *less* efficiency when a greater share of the market is held in index funds, right?
No, I don't. As long as there's a great deal of actively managed money in equities I do not believe the efficiency will change much, if at all. As ChpBastard said, we'd probably need to be somewhere in the upper-90-percentiles before this became an issue
I get that there's still a ton of active $ left to pick stocks even at 80% passive. But the fact that there's less should correlate to less efficiency, right?
Again, no. the actively traded stocks is going to have an outsized effect on stock prices, which actively trading managers will take advantage of if and when they can. We're already well past the point where the passively invested money-dumps into the market (e.g. every Friday deducted from people's payroll) can be visually spotted in volume trading - yet that hasn't increased the advantage of active stock pickers, because it's known, expected and already priced in.
I think margin buying will begin to lower as regulation gets passed forcing these banks and their principals to suffer the 100% of the impact from the losses they incur via margin trading.
I see the contrary - after some brief tightening of financial regulations following the 'Great Recession' we've largely relaxed these more stringent standards. I see very little chance of the kind of legislation you are talking about - the banks that were too big to fail are even bigger now. Particularly right now the drumbeat is eliminate regulation (it limits profits!) At the same time people continue to get creative in finding new ways of leveraging their investments.
We don't really use any solid logical justification as to why it is better, we tend to use the same logic as the older employees in the companies we work at - We do it this way because this way has always been superior no matter what any fancy new person says. It just works. This type of thinking always holds up until it doesn't. We're not in the same financial world anymore, so I'm not willing to take these platitudes for granted anymore.
If you don't take the time to think about why your strategy works now and why it will work in the future, you don't have a good plan. I'm trying to come up with a plan that logically rather than historically has a very good chance at 6%+ annual returns, and hopefully be able to achieve limited loss during recessions.
My issue with index investing as a philosophy is that assumes too many things. I don't completely disagree with the assumptions that the stock market always goes up and that it can be very risky to pick individual stocks, but I certainly don't hold them as gospel and as a thought experiment I want to come up with some conditions that could falsify these assumptions.
That is not the logic I am using, and I have an continue to question the underlying arguments for index investing. To date the conclusion I've always arrive at is that - for me - indexing is the optimal strategy.
-
It wasn't an option, but my % number would be in the mid to high 90s. Alternatively, if I had access to information that was just-this-side-of-legal insider information, my percentage number would be much, much lower.
-
An economic downturn separates the wheat from the chaff. I want to develop an IPS to be able to withstand and even thrive during an economic downturn.
Would you be interested in investing in noncorrelating assets classes and or equities with index investing?
Probably not. In addition to a decent return during a recession, I am also uncomfortable with the reasons we embrace indexing.
We don't really use any solid logical justification as to why it is better, we tend to use the same logic as the older employees in the companies we work at - We do it this way because this way has always been superior no matter what any fancy new person says. It just works. This type of thinking always holds up until it doesn't. We're not in the same financial world anymore, so I'm not willing to take these platitudes for granted anymore.
If you don't take the time to think about why your strategy works now and why it will work in the future, you don't have a good plan. I'm trying to come up with a plan that logically rather than historically has a very good chance at 6%+ annual returns, and hopefully be able to achieve limited loss during recessions.
My issue with index investing as a philosophy is that assumes too many things. I don't completely disagree with the assumptions that the stock market always goes up and that it can be very risky to pick individual stocks, but I certainly don't hold them as gospel and as a thought experiment I want to come up with some conditions that could falsify these assumptions.
Indexing works for several reasons. First, you are broadly diversified. I own thousands and thousands of companies (VTSAX has 3508 and VTIAX has 6374). If you don't disagree that the stock market always goes up, how could you possibly lose out by holding so many different companies? These index funds are the market. Second, indexing is low cost. Compounded over the multi-decade periods this translates to significantly higher performance compared to active management. Third, it's dead nuts simple and scalable. With practically no effort you can devise an investment plan and portfolio that is ridiculously easy to implement and can accommodate as much money as you can throw at it, be it thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of dollars.
-
And I agree with the general sentiment others have posted that it would have to be a very high percentage of index fund investing to break the efficiency of the market, but we would never get to that point. As passive investing grows and creates imbalances and inefficiencies with prices, someone will come along and arbitrage that away.
So my cutoff would probably be somewhere above 90-95% before I started actively picking stocks. I have my doubts it could ever get that high though.
-
Bogle's take:
“If everybody indexed, the only word you could use is chaos, catastrophe,” he said in an interview with Yahoo! Finance Saturday. “There would be no trading, there would be no way to convert a stream of income into a pile of capital or a pile of capital into a stream of income. The markets would fail.
Bogle noted that trading would dry up if the stock market comprised only indexers and there were no active investors setting prices on individual issues. Everyone would just buy or sell the market.
The market is not entirely owned by indexers, of course, and it never will be, and Bogle pointed out that as indexing increases to a certain point, it opens opportunities for active investors to exploit inefficiencies in the pricing of some stocks. But past that point, wherever it might be — somewhere beyond 75%, in his view — the market could become a dangerous place....
Bogle stressed that there is a long way to go before indexing reaches a level at which market stability begins to crumble."
-
Never.
Here's the thing......if most everyone indexed, then if we go on a limb and say that active traders could take advantage of inefficiencies, guess what? The guys with supercomputers and nanosecond trading times will take your lunch money. You'll be there thinking....hmmm, do I like Amazon or microsoft today. You make the trade and you're wrong because the guy on the other side of the trade has a $100M computer with a better algorithm than your gut and you lose. Then you decide to get out of this and put money in Tesla instead and that machine eats your lunch and kicks you in the groin just for the fun of it. You lose.
I don't kid myself that I could ever beat the market. The end.
I think computer power is a red herring in this instance. I'm talking about Buffet style buy and hold, not day trading. Algorithms are effective at what they do but ultimately limited when compared to the human mind. An algorithm cannot differentiate between a good forward looking strategy and bad one. It might take the numbers of an acquisition into account, but can it assess that, for example, an acquisition of a dog might have been made to obtain IP to save the company years in R&D? I don't know. But a human can do this quite well. And as much as we sell ourselves short, the vast majority of us understand how corporations work and can ascertain whether their fundamentals and strategy will bring them success.
-
Never.
Here's the thing......if most everyone indexed, then if we go on a limb and say that active traders could take advantage of inefficiencies, guess what? The guys with supercomputers and nanosecond trading times will take your lunch money. You'll be there thinking....hmmm, do I like Amazon or microsoft today. You make the trade and you're wrong because the guy on the other side of the trade has a $100M computer with a better algorithm than your gut and you lose. Then you decide to get out of this and put money in Tesla instead and that machine eats your lunch and kicks you in the groin just for the fun of it. You lose.
I don't kid myself that I could ever beat the market. The end.
I think computer power is a red herring in this instance. I'm talking about Buffet style buy and hold, not day trading. Algorithms are effective at what they do but ultimately limited when compared to the human mind. An algorithm cannot differentiate between a good forward looking strategy and bad one. It might take the numbers of an acquisition into account, but can it assess that, for example, an acquisition of a dog might have been made to obtain IP to save the company years in R&D? I don't know. But a human can do this quite well. And as much as we sell ourselves short, the vast majority of us understand how corporations work and can ascertain whether their fundamentals and strategy will bring them success.
What? Algorithms do what human minds tell them to do. If a person can decide which metrics to use to evaluate a company's potential for success, a person can write an algorithm to do the same thing. Unless you are saying a person who evaluates companies based on 'feelings' as opposed to objective metrics, in which case the world is filled with stories of these sorts of sots going bankrupt.
-
Never.
Here's the thing......if most everyone indexed, then if we go on a limb and say that active traders could take advantage of inefficiencies, guess what? The guys with supercomputers and nanosecond trading times will take your lunch money. You'll be there thinking....hmmm, do I like Amazon or microsoft today. You make the trade and you're wrong because the guy on the other side of the trade has a $100M computer with a better algorithm than your gut and you lose. Then you decide to get out of this and put money in Tesla instead and that machine eats your lunch and kicks you in the groin just for the fun of it. You lose.
I don't kid myself that I could ever beat the market. The end.
I think computer power is a red herring in this instance. I'm talking about Buffet style buy and hold, not day trading. Algorithms are effective at what they do but ultimately limited when compared to the human mind. An algorithm cannot differentiate between a good forward looking strategy and bad one. It might take the numbers of an acquisition into account, but can it assess that, for example, an acquisition of a dog might have been made to obtain IP to save the company years in R&D? I don't know. But a human can do this quite well. And as much as we sell ourselves short, the vast majority of us understand how corporations work and can ascertain whether their fundamentals and strategy will bring them success.
What? Algorithms do what human minds tell them to do. If a person can decide which metrics to use to evaluate a company's potential for success, a person can write an algorithm to do the same thing. Unless you are saying a person who evaluates companies based on 'feelings' as opposed to objective metrics, in which case the world is filled with stories of these sorts of sots going bankrupt.
The whole point I was making is that metrics are not the only thing a human can use to evaluate a company. By the time a forward looking strategy's success is showing in their metrics, all the humans will have already invested and the robots will have missed out because they were assessing metrics and not analyzing a strategy.
Also, since robots tend to evaluate metrics nearly perfectly in similar fashions, there will be very little inefficiency for other robots to exploit. Whereas humans tend to evaluate things imperfectly and leave plenty of inefficiency for smarter humans to exploit.
My goal is not to find incredible glitches in the market; and I don't think we can all identify the next FAANGs, but I think we all knew that Sears was gonna die. Personally speaking my plan is to invest in a dozen or so Dividend Aristocrats, avoiding the ones whose dusty business plans require serious pivoting to ensure future earnings.
-
I expect that I will be as ignorant about investing in individual stocks in the future as I am today.
How other folks are investing is unlikely to change that.
-
Robots? When did we get robots in this discussion??
-
Robots? When did we get robots in this discussion??
I am using robots as shorthand for the programs running on the supercomputers you mentioned that execute the algorithms. I also suspect there are plenty of trading firms testing out/utilizing machine learning or AI developed algorithms.
-
I expect that I will be as ignorant about investing in individual stocks in the future as I am today.
I count myself among the same group of investors that you do.
I think this is a key point that the whole discussion might be overlooking. Whether passive investors are 70% or 80% or 90% shouldn't really matter. There will always be a small cohort of investors who are better than the vast majority at stock picking, and they will never become passive investors.
Those of us who are die-hard passive investors would only contribute random noise to the price discovery mechanisms if we were forced to pick stocks. Likewise, we will never become stock pickers if there is a passive option available.
"Everyone" never does the same thing, given an identical set of circumstances. You need look no further than the results of this survey for evidence of that. This goes as much for choice of investing methodology is it does for career choice. I think it's a safe assumption that the world will never become 100% passive investor advocates. To suppose otherwise is a hypothetical that requires a suspension of belief in human nature.
What if everyone wanted to go into law enforcement? Well, I guess you wouldn't actually need any police, in that case, just for instance. But yeah, that's never going to happen either.
-
My goal is not to find incredible glitches in the market; and I don't think we can all identify the next FAANGs, but I think we all knew that Sears was gonna die.
Indeed, but at the same time I thought Apple was gonna die back in 2000. For goodness sake, their main selling point was that their computer was blue and their mouse looked like urinal soap ...
-
Probably not. In addition to a decent return during a recession, I am also uncomfortable with the reasons we embrace indexing.
We don't really use any solid logical justification as to why it is better, we tend to use the same logic as the older employees in the companies we work at - We do it this way because this way has always been superior no matter what any fancy new person says. It just works. This type of thinking always holds up until it doesn't. We're not in the same financial world anymore, so I'm not willing to take these platitudes for granted anymore.
If you don't take the time to think about why your strategy works now and why it will work in the future, you don't have a good plan. I'm trying to come up with a plan that logically rather than historically has a very good chance at 6%+ annual returns, and hopefully be able to achieve limited loss during recessions.
My issue with index investing as a philosophy is that assumes too many things. I don't completely disagree with the assumptions that the stock market always goes up and that it can be very risky to pick individual stocks, but I certainly don't hold them as gospel and as a thought experiment I want to come up with some conditions that could falsify these assumptions.
I feel like you really need to sit down and read JLCollins' Stock Series.
The reasons you think everyone suggests investing in index funds are addressed by him in a better way than I ever could.
-
Robots? When did we get robots in this discussion??
I am using robots as shorthand for the programs running on the supercomputers you mentioned that execute the algorithms. I also suspect there are plenty of trading firms testing out/utilizing machine learning or AI developed algorithms.
ok. That's not what a robot is. An algorithm ≠ a robot. An algorithm is just a set of operations that someone wrote.
Here's a simple example: select companies >= $1B, filter out those with new management, declining cashflow or P/E >the 1.5x mean for that sector. Sort by increasing net profits.
It's the same whether you do it by hand, via an excel spreadsheet or if you write a script. Of course utilizing a computer is faster.
Saying that computers are limited compared to the human mind is like saying a hammer is limited compared to the carpenter. One is a tool - the other is the operator. The carpenter isn't going to toss out the hammer, nor is the active manager going to throw out computers. Saying robots algorithms evaluate metrics nearly perfectly misses the whole point. A 'smarter human' can write a better algorithm, and s/he will thereby get an advantage.
-
I go with essentially never. I reckon there will always be at least a million people out there who would jump in to exploit inefficiencies ahead of me, and at that point why bother. But if it started to get really inefficient to the point that one or two were obvious to me I might jump in. So far that happened once and I didn't act on it.
It barely takes any transactions for a market to come up with a good price. When I bought my house it was one of only three multifamily residences to have sold within a year and a mile, but extrapolating other house prices and those three it was pretty easy to guess what a good price should be, and that is in addition to fundamental methods of determining price like % cashflow. If two participants agree to a trade, there is a new data point. What is the worst case, we return to the trading volumes of 1928? I think that would be plenty to determine accurate prices, especially with the greater knowledge, transparency, and computing power now available.
-
But you agree with the premise that there is *less* efficiency when a greater share of the market is held in index funds, right?
I get that there's still a ton of active $ left to pick stocks even at 80% passive. But the fact that there's less should correlate to less efficiency, right?
First a little demonstration - let's say a fund does nothing with 80% of it's assets. What is it's annual turnover?
Well it's not 20%, because if the fund turns over that 20% every month, that's 240% turnover. Or if it crazily turns over every week, that exceeds 1000% turnover per year. And here's my point: the stock market trades 5 days a week at millisecond speeds. There's plenty of room for trading in that remaining 20% of assets, because it matters how fast they change hands rather than the $ amount.
An active fund has lots of people working for it: the portfolio manager, researchers, traders. I claim some funds aren't finding anything before the market does. They are not providing any additional return. Maybe investors liked their marketing, and are still doing better than a savings account, or are ignoring their accounts. Active funds can persist even when they don't find anything valuable in the stock market. I claim there are a lot of these people, and the market is saturated with people trying to exploit news and opportunities. Losing some of these people doesn't reduce market efficiency - it actually just weeds out weak competition.
The real inefficiency of mutual funds, in my opinion, is all the people who are poorly informed. They allow inefficient mutual funds to stay around. I think the market is saturated with them, and losing a lot of them won't impact efficiency at all: because they aren't helping the market remain efficient.
Take SPIVA's data on how often large-cap active funds beat the S&P 500. They haven't put out full 2018 data yet, so here's the mid-2018 data for active vs S&P 500:
past 1 year, S&P 500 beats 63.46% of active funds
past 3 years, S&P 500 beats 78.64% of active funds
past 5 years, S&P 500 beats 76.49% of active funds
past 10 years, S&P 500 beats 89.15% of active funds
past 15 years, S&P 500 beats 92.43% of active funds
https://us.spindices.com/documents/spiva/spiva-us-mid-year-2018.pdf
If you're worried about a crash, the 10 year data includes the aftermath of the 2008 crisis, and the 15 year performance includes the 2008 crisis.
We're not in the same financial world anymore, so I'm not willing to take these platitudes for granted anymore.
If you don't take the time to think about why your strategy works now and why it will work in the future, you don't have a good plan.
Several books I've read say "This time it's different" are the most dangerous words in investing.
-
I didn't suss out that you might be thinking of precious metals, but if that's what you were thinking of, my answer is no.
I wasn't necessarily. More so I meant breaking your index investing into differing types of stocks, specialized indexes. ie some that preform well in less than perfect economic situations, certain international, etc. There are classes of equities that move very differently from one another.
-
The PM allocation would reduce volatility, but so what? By wanting that lower volatility, IMO you've created the requirement that your portfolio be 10% larger. So for a retiree who needs a $40k income, your minimum required FIRE portfolio just grew from $1,000,000 to $1,100,000. Would you be willing to sacrifice an extra two years of your life earning that extra $100k just to have coins in a safe or GLD in your brokerage account? Just to reduce the size of the zig zags you see on Mint.com's net worth graph? I'll take my chances but YMMV.
Forget about a gold or PM's for a moment. That's not a discussion I want to have on these boards. Your underlying assumption here is just wrong. You do not need a bigger portfolio with reduced returns IF the standard deviation of returns is reduced along with the ROI. There is research to back this up, I'm just don't have it in from of me at the moment and Google isn't helping, I will post at a later date. It's also common sense though, if you think about it. Since the 4% rule is a near worst case, it is based on outliers anyway. If you can eliminate those outliers your WR can come up.
I would argue the best time to use a decreased ROI/decreased volatility option is when someone is at the highest risk for Sequence of returns risk and/or when the measure of the higher return portion of your portfolio shows a potential for poorer than normal returns... So the first decade or so of drawdowns and/or in high CAPE situations. If the higher volatility/return portion of the portfolio does well, it doesn't matter anyway, you just have less "too much" than you would have in 100% VTI. OTOH, if it does very poorly (outlier), the noncorrelated portion of the portfolio saves your ass and significantly increases WR.
-
I just don't feel this will ever become an issue because there will always be plenty of people that think they can beat the system, young people just starting to invest that haven't heard about indexing and so on. I don't know about most people here but seems like most people I talk to use someone to do there investing. Which is one of the reasons I am here. When i just tell them to do it themselves I always get the same response. " yea but my guy is really good" ! So because of greed as well I just dont see Passive investing getting to a point that would change the Landscape enough.
-
Thanks for sparking this debate - interesting arguments from both sides.
Personally, I am far too heavily weighted in handpicked stocks. In fact, besides my target date retirement funds, I only carry stocks. No indexes.
It started with stock options, an ESPP, picked up a competitor and put some money into Apple just for fun. The portfolio has done tremendously well, but I doubt it will continue forever. That said, I prefer to invest in something I know - my current company’s industry is something I understand fairly well...
Personally, I’m just getting started with reviewing indexes and am looking for something targeting companies that will benefit from the aging population, increasing middle class, increasing life style diseases, advancements in personalized medicine, etc. I.e. companies in the medical device, consumables industry. I’ve handpicked a few stocks that have done well, but would like to diversify across a larger pool of companies to protect myself against a dog going tits up from poor management.
What about shorts? I’d like to learn how I can short the entire millennial non-industry of “influencers”...
-
What about shorts? I’d like to learn how I can short the entire millennial non-industry of “influencers”...
Not sure what you mean by this, unless you are just hating on a particular generation. The so-called "influencers' are paid by larger corporations as non-traditional part of their advertising budget - so you'd really need to short these larger companies. Only I don't see how that would work, as they spend money on these 'influencers' because they believe it lifts the profile of their particular brand, and from an advertising standpoint its really dirt cheap - often its just some product in exchange for ads and favorable mentions.
-
I expect the indexing growth rate to slow down considerably and perhaps even temporarily reverse.
It's easy to dump money into an index when it generally goes up. Not so when it's generally going down. My guess is that the next real downturn lessens the index enthusiasm for awhile. Perhaps not on this board, but within the broader population.
So to answer the question: I have no idea on the polling options, but I don't think this issue is necessarily as looming the charts would lead you to believe.
-
I didn't suss out that you might be thinking of precious metals, but if that's what you were thinking of, my answer is no.
I wasn't necessarily. More so I meant breaking your index investing into differing types of stocks, specialized indexes. ie some that preform well in less than perfect economic situations, certain international, etc. There are classes of equities that move very differently from one another.
Yeah, for sure. The steadiness of dividend aristocrats inspire confidence. They are generally priced accordingly but some go on sale from time to time. I'll probably keep my core holding of SDY and sell of portions of it when individual dividend aristocrats (that meet certain financial criteria as well as having forward facing strategies) get beat up.
-
Robots? When did we get robots in this discussion??
I am using robots as shorthand for the programs running on the supercomputers you mentioned that execute the algorithms. I also suspect there are plenty of trading firms testing out/utilizing machine learning or AI developed algorithms.
ok. That's not what a robot is. An algorithm ≠ a robot. An algorithm is just a set of operations that someone wrote.
Here's a simple example: select companies >= $1B, filter out those with new management, declining cashflow or P/E >the 1.5x mean for that sector. Sort by increasing net profits.
It's the same whether you do it by hand, via an excel spreadsheet or if you write a script. Of course utilizing a computer is faster.
Saying that computers are limited compared to the human mind is like saying a hammer is limited compared to the carpenter. One is a tool - the other is the operator. The carpenter isn't going to toss out the hammer, nor is the active manager going to throw out computers. Saying robots algorithms evaluate metrics nearly perfectly misses the whole point. A 'smarter human' can write a better algorithm, and s/he will thereby get an advantage.
My statement quite clearly indicates I realize an algorithm is not a robot. A robot is a machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically. That wikipedia definition jives perfectly with my shorthand use of robot.
The whole reason I thought you were referring to AI is because you did not lend any credence to my argument that algorithms are not able to perform nuanced analysis. You can write an algo that will analyze financials, but not one that assesses forward facing strategy based on statements, acquisitions, etc. Many hedge funds have been recently utilizing AI, and it doesn't seem to give them all that much of an edge.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-12/robot-takeover-stalls-in-worst-slump-for-ai-funds-on-record
Anyways.
I could care less how fast other investors' computers run, because I'm not a day trader. I could care less how well they've written their algorithms, because I analyze more than readily digestible data points. And because of that, I don't find your initial point all that compelling.
That's not to say I'm right, (as others have made interesting and compelling arguments about market efficiency) but your argument about algos and fast computers isn't proving me wrong. I'm not Warren Buffet but theoretically I could be - and your point would fall flat.
-
It's easy to dump money into an index when it generally goes up. Not so when it's generally going down. My guess is that the next real downturn lessens the index enthusiasm for awhile. Perhaps not on this board, but within the broader population.
Active funds tend to shift to cash after the market crash, and that cash hurts their returns when the recovery kicks in. Index funds remain fully invested. If you look at 15 years of SPIVA data on the S&P 500 vs active funds, the S&P 500 beats over 90% of them - a time that included the 2008 crisis.
-
Robots? When did we get robots in this discussion??
I am using robots as shorthand for the programs running on the supercomputers you mentioned that execute the algorithms. I also suspect there are plenty of trading firms testing out/utilizing machine learning or AI developed algorithms.
ok. That's not what a robot is. An algorithm ≠ a robot. An algorithm is just a set of operations that someone wrote.
Here's a simple example: select companies >= $1B, filter out those with new management, declining cashflow or P/E >the 1.5x mean for that sector. Sort by increasing net profits.
It's the same whether you do it by hand, via an excel spreadsheet or if you write a script. Of course utilizing a computer is faster.
Saying that computers are limited compared to the human mind is like saying a hammer is limited compared to the carpenter. One is a tool - the other is the operator. The carpenter isn't going to toss out the hammer, nor is the active manager going to throw out computers. Saying robots algorithms evaluate metrics nearly perfectly misses the whole point. A 'smarter human' can write a better algorithm, and s/he will thereby get an advantage.
My statement quite clearly indicates I realize an algorithm is not a robot. A robot is a machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically. That wikipedia definition jives perfectly with my shorthand use of robot.
The whole reason I thought you were referring to AI is because you did not lend any credence to my argument that algorithms are not able to perform nuanced analysis. You can write an algo that will analyze financials, but not one that assesses forward facing strategy based on statements, acquisitions, etc. Many hedge funds have been recently utilizing AI, and it doesn't seem to give them all that much of an edge.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-12/robot-takeover-stalls-in-worst-slump-for-ai-funds-on-record
Anyways.
I could care less how fast other investors' computers run, because I'm not a day trader. I could care less how well they've written their algorithms, because I analyze more than readily digestible data points. And because of that, I don't find your initial point all that compelling.
That's not to say I'm right, (as others have made interesting and compelling arguments about market efficiency) but your argument about algos and fast computers isn't proving me wrong. I'm not Warren Buffet but theoretically I could be - and your point would fall flat.
You're straying way off topic here and overlooking the underlying logic.
In your OP you've asked at what percentage of market ownership would you start picking stocks, and asserted - repeatedly - that indexing must increase inefficiencies in the market which you as an individual investor could then exploit to 'beat the market'. In a type of technology word-salad you've evoked algorithms, robots, AI and machine learning, while simultaneously saying - repeatedly - that you could care less about these things because you are not a day trader.
But here's the underlying flaw in that logic. Regardless of whether you use such methods is immaterial to whether the markets start becoming more inefficient, because brokerages and hedge funds do and have for decades, and they are the ones that can move markets and set prices. Brokerages have been employing computers and algorithms since before index funds existed, and they will continue in the future. Which means as an individual investor picking stocks you have to find these inefficiencies and exploit them before they do - which seems incredibly unlikely. Even if you think there's a way to better evaluate stocks which isn't part of previous methods, there are literally tens of thousands of hedge-fund managers trying to do the exact same thing as you, only they have the ability to trade in volumes and frequency that you can't match. They can take a very small edge and turn it into a big profit, whereas even if you could identify a small edge before they do your small, infrequent trades won't net you very much (if at all) after taxes. As we've discussed there remains so much actively managed money floating around that these advantages are vanishingly small.
-
Probably not. In addition to a decent return during a recession, I am also uncomfortable with the reasons we embrace indexing.
We don't really use any solid logical justification as to why it is better, we tend to use the same logic as the older employees in the companies we work at - We do it this way because this way has always been superior no matter what any fancy new person says. It just works. This type of thinking always holds up until it doesn't. We're not in the same financial world anymore, so I'm not willing to take these platitudes for granted anymore.
If you don't take the time to think about why your strategy works now and why it will work in the future, you don't have a good plan. I'm trying to come up with a plan that logically rather than historically has a very good chance at 6%+ annual returns, and hopefully be able to achieve limited loss during recessions.
My issue with index investing as a philosophy is that assumes too many things. I don't completely disagree with the assumptions that the stock market always goes up and that it can be very risky to pick individual stocks, but I certainly don't hold them as gospel and as a thought experiment I want to come up with some conditions that could falsify these assumptions.
I feel like you really need to sit down and read JLCollins' Stock Series.
The reasons you think everyone suggests investing in index funds are addressed by him in a better way than I ever could.
I read it, I thought it was very good.
He mentions the big, ugly event in 1929 and has this to say: "In 2008 we came right to the edge of the abyss. Closer I think than most folks fully appreciate. But we didn’t tumble over. This I find encouraging."
Fed target rates were at 5.25% before the 2008 crash, and now they're at about 2.4%. We've just started shrinking our 4 trillion dollar balance sheet. I'm not sure the Fed has enough flexibility to deal with another recession very effectively in the near future.
I think it is worthwhile to challenge assumptions like "the stock market always goes up" and "you can't beat the market" though I should mention I acknowledge these aren't necessarily related. Getting out of the market and getting into individual stocks are different moves.
-
I think it is worthwhile to challenge assumptions like "the stock market always goes up" and "you can't beat the market" though I should mention I acknowledge these aren't necessarily related. Getting out of the market and getting into individual stocks are different moves.
These assumptions have been debated at length, and there continues to be an ongoing discussion. Rather than saying "we should challenge assumptions" it might be more productive to give your thoughts and proposed course of action on each assumption. With regards to a potential recession and the Fed's reduced capacity to damped its effects, what strategies would you employ? You've mentioned 'dividend aristocrats' - though it was unclear whether that was a specific strategy or simply an aside about individual stock picking.
-
I think it is worthwhile to challenge assumptions like "the stock market always goes up" and "you can't beat the market" though I should mention I acknowledge these aren't necessarily related. Getting out of the market and getting into individual stocks are different moves.
These assumptions have been debated at length, and there continues to be an ongoing discussion. Rather than saying "we should challenge assumptions" it might be more productive to give your thoughts and proposed course of action on each assumption. With regards to a potential recession and the Fed's reduced capacity to damped its effects, what strategies would you employ? You've mentioned 'dividend aristocrats' - though it was unclear whether that was a specific strategy or simply an aside about individual stock picking.
Fair enough.
I view the dividend aristocrats positively for a few reasons.
Even if the stock market doesn't go up, they've demonstrated a commitment and ability to offer their investors consistent returns. It reduces the speculative nature of the stock market. You can't get rid of speculation 100% as it's always priced in, but their positive momentum inspires confidence. They are what I think of when I hear the phrase "Why work for your money when your money can work for you."
I view picking as a good way to weed out dividend aristocrats whose future profits might be in jeopardy by growing trends such as electric vehicle adoption, cord cutting, etc - and also favor the aristocrats such as Visa who stand to benefit from growing trends like going cashless.
There has been data suggesting dividend aristocrats beat the market, especially during recessions.
I must admit, buying 15 or so of these stocks on slight dips and holding for decades doesn't really correlate all that well to "exploiting inefficiencies" in the market - perhaps that's why this discussion has been a little frustrating for us.
To restate it a bit, I believe that while index fund investing might be "self-cleansing" as JLCollins reminds us, it still throws good money after bad into the dogs that populate the bottom tier of their portfolios until they eventually drop out. This is the inefficiency that I am referring to; and while it can and probably is hastened by aggressive short positions, it still happens for a period of time.
Regarding the Fed's reduced capacity to dampen the effects of a recession and how it would affect my investing... Well, I don't have anything especially insightful to share. I would make sure my portfolio favors needs over wants. IE Kimberly Clark instead of Apple. Not that I've chosen KMB, but you get the idea.
-
It's easy to dump money into an index when it generally goes up. Not so when it's generally going down. My guess is that the next real downturn lessens the index enthusiasm for awhile. Perhaps not on this board, but within the broader population.
Active funds tend to shift to cash after the market crash, and that cash hurts their returns when the recovery kicks in. Index funds remain fully invested. If you look at 15 years of SPIVA data on the S&P 500 vs active funds, the S&P 500 beats over 90% of them - a time that included the 2008 crisis.
Logically, I agree, but the average person isn't going to look at 15 years of SPIVA data and make a completely rational, long-term decision. Us humans tend to be rather illogical.
My bet is a heck of a lot of people will go back to stock picking once their index fund plunges for a few years straight. We shall see!
-
My statement quite clearly indicates I realize an algorithm is not a robot. A robot is a machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically. That wikipedia definition jives perfectly with my shorthand use of robot.
The whole reason I thought you were referring to AI is because you did not lend any credence to my argument that algorithms are not able to perform nuanced analysis. You can write an algo that will analyze financials, but not one that assesses forward facing strategy based on statements, acquisitions, etc. Many hedge funds have been recently utilizing AI, and it doesn't seem to give them all that much of an edge.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-12/robot-takeover-stalls-in-worst-slump-for-ai-funds-on-record
Anyways.
I could care less how fast other investors' computers run, because I'm not a day trader. I could care less how well they've written their algorithms, because I analyze more than readily digestible data points. And because of that, I don't find your initial point all that compelling.
That's not to say I'm right, (as others have made interesting and compelling arguments about market efficiency) but your argument about algos and fast computers isn't proving me wrong. I'm not Warren Buffet but theoretically I could be - and your point would fall flat.
You're straying way off topic here and overlooking the underlying logic.
In your OP you've asked at what percentage of market ownership would you start picking stocks, and asserted - repeatedly - that indexing must increase inefficiencies in the market which you as an individual investor could then exploit to 'beat the market'. In a type of technology word-salad you've evoked algorithms, robots, AI and machine learning, while simultaneously saying - repeatedly - that you could care less about these things because you are not a day trader.
But here's the underlying flaw in that logic. Regardless of whether you use such methods is immaterial to whether the markets start becoming more inefficient, because brokerages and hedge funds do and have for decades, and they are the ones that can move markets and set prices. Brokerages have been employing computers and algorithms since before index funds existed, and they will continue in the future. Which means as an individual investor picking stocks you have to find these inefficiencies and exploit them before they do - which seems incredibly unlikely. Even if you think there's a way to better evaluate stocks which isn't part of previous methods, there are literally tens of thousands of hedge-fund managers trying to do the exact same thing as you, only they have the ability to trade in volumes and frequency that you can't match. They can take a very small edge and turn it into a big profit, whereas even if you could identify a small edge before they do your small, infrequent trades won't net you very much (if at all) after taxes. As we've discussed there remains so much actively managed money floating around that these advantages are vanishingly small.
I'm not trying to start a separate argument, but some of your thoughts here are incorrect. Peter Lynch said it best, "The amateur investor has many built in advantages that could result in outperforming the experts. Rule #1 is to stop listening to the professionals."
One of an institution's biggest struggles is what you seem to view as an asset - size. Concentration is important and when you're handling a $5B fund, it's not easy. Even tougher with a $250B fund. Sure, they can move the market and even buy or sell shares with the express purpose of doing the opposite (selling or buying), but it's a risk because they don't know who they're working against. An individual's ability to move in and out of the market on a $5M or $1M or $50,000 account is vastly different and in respect to size, an advantage.
-
My statement quite clearly indicates I realize an algorithm is not a robot. A robot is a machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically. That wikipedia definition jives perfectly with my shorthand use of robot.
The whole reason I thought you were referring to AI is because you did not lend any credence to my argument that algorithms are not able to perform nuanced analysis. You can write an algo that will analyze financials, but not one that assesses forward facing strategy based on statements, acquisitions, etc. Many hedge funds have been recently utilizing AI, and it doesn't seem to give them all that much of an edge.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-12/robot-takeover-stalls-in-worst-slump-for-ai-funds-on-record
Anyways.
I could care less how fast other investors' computers run, because I'm not a day trader. I could care less how well they've written their algorithms, because I analyze more than readily digestible data points. And because of that, I don't find your initial point all that compelling.
That's not to say I'm right, (as others have made interesting and compelling arguments about market efficiency) but your argument about algos and fast computers isn't proving me wrong. I'm not Warren Buffet but theoretically I could be - and your point would fall flat.
You're straying way off topic here and overlooking the underlying logic.
In your OP you've asked at what percentage of market ownership would you start picking stocks, and asserted - repeatedly - that indexing must increase inefficiencies in the market which you as an individual investor could then exploit to 'beat the market'. In a type of technology word-salad you've evoked algorithms, robots, AI and machine learning, while simultaneously saying - repeatedly - that you could care less about these things because you are not a day trader.
But here's the underlying flaw in that logic. Regardless of whether you use such methods is immaterial to whether the markets start becoming more inefficient, because brokerages and hedge funds do and have for decades, and they are the ones that can move markets and set prices. Brokerages have been employing computers and algorithms since before index funds existed, and they will continue in the future. Which means as an individual investor picking stocks you have to find these inefficiencies and exploit them before they do - which seems incredibly unlikely. Even if you think there's a way to better evaluate stocks which isn't part of previous methods, there are literally tens of thousands of hedge-fund managers trying to do the exact same thing as you, only they have the ability to trade in volumes and frequency that you can't match. They can take a very small edge and turn it into a big profit, whereas even if you could identify a small edge before they do your small, infrequent trades won't net you very much (if at all) after taxes. As we've discussed there remains so much actively managed money floating around that these advantages are vanishingly small.
I'm not trying to start a separate argument, but some of your thoughts here are incorrect. Peter Lynch said it best, "The amateur investor has many built in advantages that could result in outperforming the experts. Rule #1 is to stop listening to the professionals."
One of an institution's biggest struggles is what you seem to view as an asset - size. Concentration is important and when you're handling a $5B fund, it's not easy. Even tougher with a $250B fund. Sure, they can move the market and even buy or sell shares with the express purpose of doing the opposite (selling or buying), but it's a risk because they don't know who they're working against. An individual's ability to move in and out of the market on a $5M or $1M or $50,000 account is vastly different and in respect to size, an advantage.
Some of the biggest names in the business from the last 50 years had astronomical returns when they were only handling a little bit of money. After they became famous, popular, and ended up with massive amounts of money to manage their performance flattened out because instead of expertly gaming the market, they had so much money to move that they became the market.
-
On efficiency:
There's an assumption on the OP's part that an increase in index holdings means an increase in market inefficiency. Baked into that assumption is a pair of further assumptions: that a larger market is inherently more efficient than a smaller one, independent of absolute size, and that efficiency gains are linear. I'm not convinced that either is true. Maybe all you need for maximum efficiency is for 1% of the money in the market to be liquid and actively traded, and everything past that just adds noise. Maybe the market goes from 99.9 to 99.99% efficiency when you go from 5% to 50% of the market being actively traded, and drops to 99% when only 0.5% of the market is actively managed.
On the idea of the smart analyst with a small stake being more nimble than huge institutional investors: even if you buy into this idea, it doesn't mean you're the nimble brainiac making bank. It's more likely to be a freakishly smart quant at a small hedge fund. I know people who work in those kinds of roles, and they are phenomenally intelligent, work ferociously long hours, specialise in knowing absolutely everything about their particular field, and have nearly unlimited computing firepower. I know enough to know that I will not beat them at active investment, which means they will take my money. Even if there is room in a heavily passive market for active investors to make bank, you and I will not be those active investors.
-
The PM allocation would reduce volatility, but so what? By wanting that lower volatility, IMO you've created the requirement that your portfolio be 10% larger. So for a retiree who needs a $40k income, your minimum required FIRE portfolio just grew from $1,000,000 to $1,100,000. Would you be willing to sacrifice an extra two years of your life earning that extra $100k just to have coins in a safe or GLD in your brokerage account? Just to reduce the size of the zig zags you see on Mint.com's net worth graph? I'll take my chances but YMMV.
Forget about a gold or PM's for a moment. That's not a discussion I want to have on these boards. Your underlying assumption here is just wrong. You do not need a bigger portfolio with reduced returns IF the standard deviation of returns is reduced along with the ROI. There is research to back this up, I'm just don't have it in from of me at the moment and Google isn't helping, I will post at a later date. It's also common sense though, if you think about it. Since the 4% rule is a near worst case, it is based on outliers anyway. If you can eliminate those outliers your WR can come up.
I would argue the best time to use a decreased ROI/decreased volatility option is when someone is at the highest risk for Sequence of returns risk and/or when the measure of the higher return portion of your portfolio shows a potential for poorer than normal returns... So the first decade or so of drawdowns and/or in high CAPE situations. If the higher volatility/return portion of the portfolio does well, it doesn't matter anyway, you just have less "too much" than you would have in 100% VTI. OTOH, if it does very poorly (outlier), the noncorrelated portion of the portfolio saves your ass and significantly increases WR.
So you're saying a higher WR such as 4.5% might be sustainable if one was able to reduce portfolio volatility with a bit of low-correlation, low-yielding ballast? Isn't this concept related to the various optimal asset allocation studies that recommended a 90/10 or 80/20 stock to bond ratio? I believe earlyretirementnow.com has a good probability of failure heatmap for various stock/bond allocations and WRs. That site also recommends an equity glidepath during those first few vulnerable years of retirement.
There is a risk in saying "Instead of 80/20 stocks/bonds, I'll try 80/20 stocks/cash or stocks/PMs or stocks/bitcoin or stocks/uncorrelatedwhatever". The risk is that the AA studies were done on bonds, which yield something, and many low correlation assets yield little or nothing. If the substitution reduces (or has a chance of reducing) the portfolio's earnings potential, the portfolio's odds of long-term survival will be affected - probably for the worse.
An all-cash portfolio with an ROI of zero would be utterly uncorrelated with the stock market, but it would be nearly certain to be depleted in about 20 years at a 4% WR (not 25y because don't forget inflation). Low volatility does not equal safe.
-
So you're saying a higher WR such as 4.5% might be sustainable if one was able to reduce portfolio volatility with a bit of low-correlation, low-yielding ballast? Isn't this concept related to the various optimal asset allocation studies that recommended a 90/10 or 80/20 stock to bond ratio?
Correct. But I would argue a more specific portfolio of specialized sector index funds, international equities, alternative assets, and specialized bond funds could reduce volatility much more than varying percentages of total market/total bond. This is the tie in with the OP
I believe earlyretirementnow.com has a good probability of failure heatmap for various stock/bond allocations and WRs. That site also recommends an equity glidepath during those first few vulnerable years of retirement.
I read through that series awhile ago and don't remember exactly which data is presented, I'll take your word for it. However, yes, this is exactly the purpose of a bond tent. Reduce volatility at the highest risk points. Again, this is just a total/total idea though.
There is a risk in saying "Instead of 80/20 stocks/bonds, I'll try 80/20 stocks/cash or stocks/PMs or stocks/bitcoin or stocks/uncorrelatedwhatever". The risk is that the AA studies were done on bonds, which yield something, and many low correlation assets yield little or nothing. If the substitution reduces (or has a chance of reducing) the portfolio's earnings potential, the portfolio's odds of long-term survival will be affected - probably for the worse.
Bonds have the potential for negative return too. This is exactly why the mid 1960's sucked as historical SWR points. The 1970's brought both shitty equity and bond performance, at least from a total/total standpoint.
An all-cash portfolio with an ROI of zero would be utterly uncorrelated with the stock market, but it would be nearly certain to be depleted in about 20 years at a 4% WR (not 25y because don't forget inflation). Low volatility does not equal safe.
Right, but you only need about 1.25% real to make it last 30 years, 3.25 gets you 50, and obviously 4% is perpetual. Assuming zero volatility in returns, obviously this is the extreme.
The point is you do not need the 7% real equities produce historically. You only need half that, and that 7% average is useless if the first 10 years are negative, too much principle depleted. So if a person is at significant risk (via high CAPE or early in withdrawal) and assuming the goal is not to run out of money (as opposed to best chances of having too much money), then trading return for reduced volatility makes sense. It maximizes minimum SWR.
Here's an article (https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadepfau/2016/06/15/what-do-market-expectations-have-to-do-with-safe-withdrawal-rates/#d7294a113744) wrt the research showing this relationship as previously promised.
-
I read it, I thought it was very good.
He mentions the big, ugly event in 1929 and has this to say: "In 2008 we came right to the edge of the abyss. Closer I think than most folks fully appreciate. But we didn’t tumble over. This I find encouraging."
Fed target rates were at 5.25% before the 2008 crash, and now they're at about 2.4%. We've just started shrinking our 4 trillion dollar balance sheet. I'm not sure the Fed has enough flexibility to deal with another recession very effectively in the near future.
I think it is worthwhile to challenge assumptions like "the stock market always goes up" and "you can't beat the market" though I should mention I acknowledge these aren't necessarily related. Getting out of the market and getting into individual stocks are different moves.
It's interesting to me that everyone just assumes that the Fed knows what it's doing and that cutting rates during the Great Recession was a positive. We don't actually know because we only have the one timeline to work with. But what if cutting interest rates and QE all actually made a normal market downturn become the event that made the Great Recession possible?
The real truth about the 2008 financial crisis | Brian S. Wesbury | TEDxCountyLineRoad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrFSO62p0jk)
I'm not saying this guy is right in his speech. Just that it's something to consider.
-
I'm not trying to start a separate argument, but some of your thoughts here are incorrect. Peter Lynch said it best, "The amateur investor has many built in advantages that could result in outperforming the experts. Rule #1 is to stop listening to the professionals."
One of an institution's biggest struggles is what you seem to view as an asset - size. Concentration is important and when you're handling a $5B fund, it's not easy. Even tougher with a $250B fund. Sure, they can move the market and even buy or sell shares with the express purpose of doing the opposite (selling or buying), but it's a risk because they don't know who they're working against. An individual's ability to move in and out of the market on a $5M or $1M or $50,000 account is vastly different and in respect to size, an advantage.
I didn't respond at first because runbikerun gave a pretty good synopsis. I'm not refuting that individual investors have certain advantages that large funds do not - Buffett loves to highlight how his fund is beholden to the whims of its shareholders and has to produce quarterly reports even though his preferred investment timeframe is 'forever'.
BUT - the OP's premise is that with an increasing share of the market being held in index funds inefficiences will emerge that were not present at lower levels. That is what I was disagreeing with, in part because large funds can command so much volume and leverage. Admittedly the conversation took a hard turn into side topics, but the advantages of the individual investor holding for the long term are no different now than they were two decades ago, and prices continue to be set by the large funds that buy stocks in large lots on a frequent basis. Ergo, increased indexing will not change the dynamics.
-
I read it, I thought it was very good.
He mentions the big, ugly event in 1929 and has this to say: "In 2008 we came right to the edge of the abyss. Closer I think than most folks fully appreciate. But we didn’t tumble over. This I find encouraging."
Fed target rates were at 5.25% before the 2008 crash, and now they're at about 2.4%. We've just started shrinking our 4 trillion dollar balance sheet. I'm not sure the Fed has enough flexibility to deal with another recession very effectively in the near future.
I think it is worthwhile to challenge assumptions like "the stock market always goes up" and "you can't beat the market" though I should mention I acknowledge these aren't necessarily related. Getting out of the market and getting into individual stocks are different moves.
It's interesting to me that everyone just assumes that the Fed knows what it's doing and that cutting rates during the Great Recession was a positive. We don't actually know because we only have the one timeline to work with. But what if cutting interest rates and QE all actually made a normal market downturn become the event that made the Great Recession possible?
The real truth about the 2008 financial crisis | Brian S. Wesbury | TEDxCountyLineRoad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrFSO62p0jk)
I'm not saying this guy is right in his speech. Just that it's something to consider.
That's an interesting argument.
I think the dramatic lowering of interest rates to recover from the dot com crash wasn't the only ingredient. It coincided with the loose loan standards to create a housing bubble and then the loose derivative trading standards popped it in a very destructive way. I think the popularity of adjustable rate mortgages during that time period played a role as well.
Mark to market accounting seems to be the most accurate way to assess value. Historical cost might create more stability in the short term but ultimately bears little resemblance to market value. The way this guy shits on M2M accounting makes me think he owns real estate in CA :)
-
Some of the biggest names in the business from the last 50 years had astronomical returns when they were only handling a little bit of money. After they became famous, popular, and ended up with massive amounts of money to manage their performance flattened out because instead of expertly gaming the market, they had so much money to move that they became the market.
Absolutely.
On efficiency:
On the idea of the smart analyst with a small stake being more nimble than huge institutional investors: even if you buy into this idea, it doesn't mean you're the nimble brainiac making bank. It's more likely to be a freakishly smart quant at a small hedge fund. I know people who work in those kinds of roles, and they are phenomenally intelligent, work ferociously long hours, specialise in knowing absolutely everything about their particular field, and have nearly unlimited computing firepower. I know enough to know that I will not beat them at active investment, which means they will take my money. Even if there is room in a heavily passive market for active investors to make bank, you and I will not be those active investors.
True, just because you have an advantage doesn't mean that you're a nimble brainiac making bank. But, one must not be a nimble brainiac to make bank either.
Quants typically make horrible traders; many are amazing analysts, but they are usually horrible traders. Now, in terms of the analysis, they undoubtedly give their firm an advantage the individual investor does not have. But, that doesn't equate to being a nimble brainiac making bank, as evidenced by the numbers.