Advocating to not index
-
- Posts: 659
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 3:01 pm
Advocating to not index
Shouldn’t we not advocate for indexing too much due to the efficiency non-indexers bring to the market? Essentially I am benefiting from others paying brokerage fees to make the index market more efficient for me. If too many people index then the market becomes inefficient.
Re: Advocating to not index
It seems like this is self-correcting. There will always be someone who wants to trade and try to outperform, as the pool of indexers gets larger, the pool of traders gets smaller and I think more people have an opportunity to outperform?
Non-issue to me.
Non-issue to me.
Amateur investors are not cool-headed logicians.
-
- Posts: 2684
- Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2017 11:25 am
Re: Advocating to not index
Will never happen. Too many people looking out to make money.masonstone wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:20 pm Shouldn’t we not advocate for indexing too much due to the efficiency non-indexers bring to the market? Essentially I am benefiting from others paying brokerage fees to make the index market more efficient for me. If too many people index then the market becomes inefficient.
Look up how much hedge funds are worth..,..
Re: Advocating to not index
Bogleheads are small in the universe of investing.
I have one acquaintance who is contributing to all of the funds in her 403b. Equal percentage to all.
Arg!
I have one acquaintance who is contributing to all of the funds in her 403b. Equal percentage to all.
Arg!
- arcticpineapplecorp.
- Posts: 15081
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:22 pm
Re: Advocating to not index
yes we should advocate that others stop indexing immediately. I suggest that you stop indexing first, since you're making the market less efficient for me.
See how this wouldn't work? You want to index, but you don't want others to index because they'll mess it up for you? That doesn't sound fair. Others who have been indexing far longer than you have think you're messing it up for them. Get it?
By the way, there have been many posts on this subject at bogleheads over the past several years. Not sure if you typed your question into the google search bar, but I would recommend that next time. Many questions have already been asked and answered. I'll give you some other posts to read that hopefully will answer your question in more detail than you probably want or could possibly imagine. The basic gist of it is it's not a problem so why worry about things that aren't yet a problem. If it becomes a problem, then it's worth discussing and it may never become a problem because it's a self correcting system (when too many make a market inefficient, then the inefficiencies are there to be exploited. Who will do that? Those active traders who choose not to index. Then the market becomees efficient again and the indexers will benefit from the active traders. The falacy of the assumption rests on believing people won't seek to maximize profit. Clearly that's not true).
viewtopic.php?t=168490
viewtopic.php?t=173352
viewtopic.php?t=133726
viewtopic.php?t=106912
viewtopic.php?t=160311
viewtopic.php?t=128259
See how this wouldn't work? You want to index, but you don't want others to index because they'll mess it up for you? That doesn't sound fair. Others who have been indexing far longer than you have think you're messing it up for them. Get it?
By the way, there have been many posts on this subject at bogleheads over the past several years. Not sure if you typed your question into the google search bar, but I would recommend that next time. Many questions have already been asked and answered. I'll give you some other posts to read that hopefully will answer your question in more detail than you probably want or could possibly imagine. The basic gist of it is it's not a problem so why worry about things that aren't yet a problem. If it becomes a problem, then it's worth discussing and it may never become a problem because it's a self correcting system (when too many make a market inefficient, then the inefficiencies are there to be exploited. Who will do that? Those active traders who choose not to index. Then the market becomees efficient again and the indexers will benefit from the active traders. The falacy of the assumption rests on believing people won't seek to maximize profit. Clearly that's not true).
viewtopic.php?t=168490
viewtopic.php?t=173352
viewtopic.php?t=133726
viewtopic.php?t=106912
viewtopic.php?t=160311
viewtopic.php?t=128259
Last edited by arcticpineapplecorp. on Tue Jul 03, 2018 8:56 am, edited 2 times in total.
It's hard to accept the truth when the lies were exactly what you wanted to hear. Investing is simple, but not easy. Buy, hold & rebalance low cost index funds & manage taxable events. Asking Portfolio Questions |
- arcticpineapplecorp.
- Posts: 15081
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:22 pm
Re: Advocating to not index
it's funny that you say that. I'm reading a book that said because people are overwhelmed by the number of choices in their 401k that they just invest equally in all of the choices. I thought he was making that up. Apparently it's true.
It's hard to accept the truth when the lies were exactly what you wanted to hear. Investing is simple, but not easy. Buy, hold & rebalance low cost index funds & manage taxable events. Asking Portfolio Questions |
Re: Advocating to not index
^^^ I actually did that - a very long time ago. As an engineer, it makes sense (equal distribution). I don't remember when I switched over to a target retirement fund.
This thread is now in the Investing - Theory, News & General forum (theory).
This thread is now in the Investing - Theory, News & General forum (theory).
Re: Advocating to not index
At some level that is true. But some institutional active investors have built in advantages over you and me as active traders:masonstone wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:20 pm Shouldn’t we not advocate for indexing too much due to the efficiency non-indexers bring to the market? Essentially I am benefiting from others paying brokerage fees to make the index market more efficient for me. If too many people index then the market becomes inefficient.
1. Potentially lower trading fees
2. Potentially better information / inside info
3. Technology advantages - High frequency trading / front running
Our best defense against that is passive investing - just follow what they do.
- dodecahedron
- Posts: 6607
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:28 am
Re: Advocating to not index
Back in the old days, when there were only two choices available, many academics (including Harry Markowitz, a founder of modern portfolio theory) went with the equal distribution choice of 50/50 in their 403(b) plans. It seemed to serve folks in good stead, 50% in TIAA (fixed income) and 50% in CREF (equities). (I believe that when CREF was first introduced, 50% was the maximum that was allowed to be allocated to CREF.)
Re: Advocating to not index
I just think it is sad she hasn’t done any reading or learned about the funds. Fortunately she has a government pension and SS as her main retirement income.arcticpineapplecorp. wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:40 pmit's funny that you say that. I'm reading a book that said because people are overwhelmed by the number of choices in their 401k that they just invest equally in all of the choices. I thought he was making that up. Apparently it's true.
- Phineas J. Whoopee
- Posts: 9675
- Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 5:18 pm
Re: Advocating to not index
If those non-indexers don't have special information, they might be making things less efficient.
"To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks." - Benjamin Graham
Re: Advocating to not index
Well, even here in indexing nervana, there are myriad threads every day on people tilting, bobbing and weaving trying to beat the index. I think greed will sustain the true indexers until the next meteor comes along and resets evolution.
Consistently sets low goals and fails to achieve them.
Re: Advocating to not index
I frequently have people ask me for Financial advice related to Investing, I explain the concept of Index investing, More often than not the advice falls on deaf ears.
- bertilak
- Posts: 10725
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:23 pm
- Location: East of the Pecos, West of the Mississippi
Re: Advocating to not index
True, and another thing ...
Even if low-information non-indexers DID help market efficiency, I don't see how it is their DUTY (as sometimes implied) to make ill-advised decisions for the benefit of other, smarter people (or the mysterious Mr. Market).
May neither drought nor rain nor blizzard disturb the joy juice in your gizzard. -- Squire Omar Barker (aka S.O.B.), the Cowboy Poet
- zaboomafoozarg
- Posts: 2431
- Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:34 pm
Re: Advocating to not index
I never talk to anyone in real life about investing, because I don't feel like opening up that potential risk of getting blamed for monetary loss.
Re: Advocating to not index
This is posted about frequently.masonstone wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:20 pm Shouldn’t we not advocate for indexing too much due to the efficiency non-indexers bring to the market? Essentially I am benefiting from others paying brokerage fees to make the index market more efficient for me. If too many people index then the market becomes inefficient.
The answer is you don't have to worry about it. If indexing ever stops being efficient and active starts beating indexes, more people will resume picking stocks and your "problem" will be solved.
JT
Re: Advocating to not index
I'm no longer a big Index Fund fan - I think the space has become too crowded and won't manage the next major drawdown without significant tracking error and increases in costs trying to manage liqiduity as investors flee.
I now use the IB SMAs for 8 bps and hold the shares directly. The small little cost is worth the risk insurance for an industry that has balooned since 2008.
I now use the IB SMAs for 8 bps and hold the shares directly. The small little cost is worth the risk insurance for an industry that has balooned since 2008.
Re: Advocating to not index
You don't need to be a fan (the Malvern Indexers aren't an NFL franchise, after all), but you should be open to hearing that the premise ("the space has become too crowded and won't manage the next major drawdown without significant tracking error and increases in costs trying to manage liqiduity as investors flee") is flawed.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch
- arcticpineapplecorp.
- Posts: 15081
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:22 pm
Re: Advocating to not index
Do you think you can do better with tracking error than this?carguyny wrote: ↑Tue Jul 03, 2018 7:15 am I'm no longer a big Index Fund fan - I think the space has become too crowded and won't manage the next major drawdown without significant tracking error and increases in costs trying to manage liqiduity as investors flee.
I now use the IB SMAs for 8 bps and hold the shares directly. The small little cost is worth the risk insurance for an industry that has balooned since 2008.
https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Vanguar ... king_error
Admiral shares had better tracking:
It's hard to accept the truth when the lies were exactly what you wanted to hear. Investing is simple, but not easy. Buy, hold & rebalance low cost index funds & manage taxable events. Asking Portfolio Questions |
Re: Advocating to not index
Same here. Outside of Bogleheads and some talks with DW, I never talk investing. Who exactly should "we" stop advocating to?? "Hey, all you Bogleheads, stop indexing please"... good luck with that!zaboomafoozarg wrote: ↑Tue Jul 03, 2018 6:46 am I never talk to anyone in real life about investing, because I don't feel like opening up that potential risk of getting blamed for monetary loss.
Re: Advocating to not index
As long as there are greedy people, indexing will not overly crowd stock market behavior. So far, so good, no end in sight.
Time for the Mark Twain quote, "Reports of my demise have been greatly exaggerated."
Time for the Mark Twain quote, "Reports of my demise have been greatly exaggerated."
- bertilak
- Posts: 10725
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:23 pm
- Location: East of the Pecos, West of the Mississippi
Re: Advocating to not index
I think it's a little rough calling non-index investors "greedy." Are index investors simply less greedy? Where does one draw the line between greedy and not greedy?
May neither drought nor rain nor blizzard disturb the joy juice in your gizzard. -- Squire Omar Barker (aka S.O.B.), the Cowboy Poet
Re: Advocating to not index
I am loath to give investing advice to anyone other than to use a TDF.
In addition to getting me off the hook for bad advice, It is usually the best thing for those
that are happily ignorant.
Re: Advocating to not index
Passive investing by itself doesn't make the market more efficient and probably makes it less efficient since investing and even holding passive investments are not actively selecting specific stocks but all that are in the fund. There are some actions that indexes/index funds take that do contribute to add to efficiency e.g. the firm creating the index changes the composition by adding and deleting some members based on their goals for the index. e.g. a firm like GE might be subtracted and a more representative firm selected to replace it. Also, some index funds don't capture all the stocks included in the fund but take a representative sample. But, usually that sampling is very much geared to be representative of the index and not targeted to over or underweight better or worse performers.
So it seems that the efficiency of the equity market depends, to a large extent, on active investors. Individuals, active fund mangers, pension fund managers, college endowments, hedge fund managers, variable annuity providers, etc.
But, they usually have better research and other information than individual investors who now opt for index funds instead of trying to pick winners by investing in individual stocks.
The decline in the number of listed stocks is also happening due to mergers and private equity activity. e.g. could large passive index dollars be chasing a smaller group of stocks over time distorting their value while the "smart" money is investing in private equity deals?
The increase in passive index investing assets and the decline in the number of stocks to invest in does raise a bit of a concern to me. I guess I never underestimate the creativity of the "street" to survive and prosper -- usually to the detriment of the individual investor. e.g. we still can't get brokers to be charged to do what is best for their clients only what is suitable. You would think that would be a basic tenant of those firms/individuals that want to be your investment firm/adviser.
So it seems that the efficiency of the equity market depends, to a large extent, on active investors. Individuals, active fund mangers, pension fund managers, college endowments, hedge fund managers, variable annuity providers, etc.
But, they usually have better research and other information than individual investors who now opt for index funds instead of trying to pick winners by investing in individual stocks.
The decline in the number of listed stocks is also happening due to mergers and private equity activity. e.g. could large passive index dollars be chasing a smaller group of stocks over time distorting their value while the "smart" money is investing in private equity deals?
The increase in passive index investing assets and the decline in the number of stocks to invest in does raise a bit of a concern to me. I guess I never underestimate the creativity of the "street" to survive and prosper -- usually to the detriment of the individual investor. e.g. we still can't get brokers to be charged to do what is best for their clients only what is suitable. You would think that would be a basic tenant of those firms/individuals that want to be your investment firm/adviser.
Re: Advocating to not index
Yeah, if someone at work asks I usually say to save more and use one of the great target date funds we have.
Never underestimate the power of the force of low cost index funds.
-
- Posts: 904
- Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:11 pm
- Location: Springfield
Re: Advocating to not index
The Buttonwood columnist seems to agree.
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-e ... eindexfearYet if more people are buying the index, might the market become less efficient? And might that, in turn, create opportunities for the very stockpickers who Samuelson thought should cease trading? In fact, the opposite is more probable. If index investing has displaced bad stockpickers, as seems likely, it will have made the market more efficient, not less.
-
- Posts: 904
- Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:11 pm
- Location: Springfield
Re: Advocating to not index
Larry Swedroe adds -
http://www.etf.com/sections/index-inves ... nopaging=1The basic argument of these and other critiques is that the popularity of indexing (and the broader category of passive investing) is distorting prices as fewer shares are traded by investors performing the act of “price discovery.” Let’s examine the validity of such claims.