Only Good Argument Against Indexed Funds

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Post Reply
User avatar
Topic Author
laidback_and_relaxed
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Only Good Argument Against Indexed Funds

Post by laidback_and_relaxed » Wed Oct 09, 2019 7:59 am

This Reuters article posted on Yahoo Finance is the 1st and only good argument I’ve seen against passive funds (and ETFs?). Basically it says that passive funds don’t weigh in on management issues like management compensation and such, letting poorly run companies get away with more. The article compares passive investment funds with active funds where even if the custodian for an active investment fund (or ETF?) isn’t actively voting on issues via proxies, they’re voting with their investment dollars and moving to other options.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/special- ... 12503.html

The rational isn’t enough for me to change my preference for passive ETFs and funds over active, but raises a red flag for me.

CnC
Posts: 817
Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 12:41 pm

Re: Only Good Argument Against Indexed Funds

Post by CnC » Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:26 am

laidback_and_relaxed wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 7:59 am
This Reuters article posted on Yahoo Finance is the 1st and only good argument I’ve seen against passive funds (and ETFs?). Basically it says that passive funds don’t weigh in on management issues like management compensation and such, letting poorly run companies get away with more. The article compares passive investment funds with active funds where even if the custodian for an active investment fund (or ETF?) isn’t actively voting on issues via proxies, they’re voting with their investment dollars and moving to other options.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/special- ... 12503.html

The rational isn’t enough for me to change my preference for passive ETFs and funds over active, but raises a red flag for me.
I'll play along with management issues.

Let's talk about poorly run companies.
GE this had management issues and despite the fact that GE had always been in the sp 500 and thus a big part of virtually every index fund they have been held to task so much so they lost their sp500 ranking and stock prices have halved.

User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 5391
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: Only Good Argument Against Indexed Funds

Post by vineviz » Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:31 am

laidback_and_relaxed wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 7:59 am
This Reuters article posted on Yahoo Finance is the 1st and only good argument I’ve seen against passive funds (and ETFs?). Basically it says that passive funds don’t weigh in on management issues like management compensation and such, letting poorly run companies get away with more. The article compares passive investment funds with active funds where even if the custodian for an active investment fund (or ETF?) isn’t actively voting on issues via proxies, they’re voting with their investment dollars and moving to other options.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/special- ... 12503.html

The rational isn’t enough for me to change my preference for passive ETFs and funds over active, but raises a red flag for me.
It's not a good argument.

For one thing, all the largest managers of index funds also operate actively managed funds and I guarantee there is no significant difference in the way the managers of one set of funds vote relative to other set.

If anything, it seems like the firms mentioned in the article are actually MORE likely to challenge management than the average active manager. According to the article, "BlackRock voted with management 93% of the time, followed by Vanguard at 91% and State Street at 84%" but the average rate for all mutual funds is 94% according to the Investment Company Institute. Most likely this is because active managers have closer personal relationships with company management, by virtue of the fundamental research they do.

Furthermore, it is a mathematical necessity that the aggregate holdings of active managers exactly matches the aggregate holdings of index funds. So there is no "voting with their feet" benefit for one group that doesn't also apply to the other group.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch

Ferdinand2014
Posts: 693
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2018 6:49 pm

Re: Only Good Argument Against Indexed Funds

Post by Ferdinand2014 » Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:34 am

laidback_and_relaxed wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 7:59 am
This Reuters article posted on Yahoo Finance is the 1st and only good argument I’ve seen against passive funds (and ETFs?). Basically it says that passive funds don’t weigh in on management issues like management compensation and such, letting poorly run companies get away with more. The article compares passive investment funds with active funds where even if the custodian for an active investment fund (or ETF?) isn’t actively voting on issues via proxies, they’re voting with their investment dollars and moving to other options.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/special- ... 12503.html

The rational isn’t enough for me to change my preference for passive ETFs and funds over active, but raises a red flag for me.
P/E ratio of Netflix: 107
P/E ratio of JP. Morgan: 11

Disagree or not about the relative valuations, they are both in the S&P 500. Price discovery and therefore buying or selling based on overall management and growth prospects in my opinion are still actively pursued. I would say that's voting with their investment dollars. Vanguard is very clear that they take their voting proxy seriously to the betterment of the mutual fund owners.
“You only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out.“ — Warren Buffett

firebirdparts
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:21 pm

Re: Only Good Argument Against Indexed Funds

Post by firebirdparts » Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:32 am

It's a lie, basically. The fund managers are actively voting. The article is saying "I can in my wisdom nitpick how they voted". You certainly can. No question. Sadly, actively managed funds also vote the same way. I can nitpick how they vote too. Most folks don't have quite so many votes.

Indexing is not the problem, as always. Rather, indexing creates an opportunity to challenge management. They complaint here is that they weren't quick enough to use it. Active funds don't even have the ability.

For instance: Lund said in an interview. “The problem is going to be greater as these index funds get more money,” The reality is that the opportunity is going to be greater as these index funds get more money.

I never looked at this before:
https://about.vanguard.com/investment-s ... nds-voted/

User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 39127
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: Only Good Argument Against Indexed Funds

Post by nisiprius » Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:36 pm

Does the market care about "poorly run companies?" If so, then index funds do care about poorly run companies.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.

student
Posts: 3968
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:58 am

Re: Only Good Argument Against Indexed Funds

Post by student » Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:46 pm

Essentially, the argument to me is index funds are buying some losers. But it is exactly what index funds are designed for, buying losers and winners because it is difficult to pick winners. Actually, the active mangers should love this as they can now buy only winners and let the suckers (index funds) left holding the bag.

User avatar
asset_chaos
Posts: 1625
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:13 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Only Good Argument Against Indexed Funds

Post by asset_chaos » Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:36 pm

Poor management, good management, is it really that easy to tell? Is there an obvious metric that classifies poorly managed (or is that manged) from well managed companies? And, if there is, does the management metric predict stock returns? Seems ripe for a new factor: GmB (good minus bad), long well managed, short poorly managed. Active fund managers (ignoring for the moment the meta-problem of the fund companies being themselves well or poorly managed) would only invest in well managed companies and beat the pants off index funds. Could it be just that simple?
Regards, | | Guy

Workable Goblin
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 8:37 pm

Re: Only Good Argument Against Indexed Funds

Post by Workable Goblin » Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:33 pm

asset_chaos wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:36 pm
Poor management, good management, is it really that easy to tell? Is there an obvious metric that classifies poorly managed (or is that manged) from well managed companies?
Well, the article itself points out some examples of, let us say, very obviously questionable management decisions, mostly tied to extremely high executive pay levels. For instance, CSX is cited as paying an enormous amount of money as a signing bonus to a very elderly and ill chief executive, who promptly died less than a year later. Perhaps not all management decisions are so obviously bad as spending tens of millions of dollars hiring someone who is unlikely to live more than a few years, but I doubt 93% of them are worth approving.

(But then, I have a poor opinion of business executives in general, so I would think that)

User avatar
David Jay
Posts: 6992
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 5:54 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Only Good Argument Against Indexed Funds

Post by David Jay » Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:45 pm

Workable Goblin wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:33 pm
Well, the article itself points out some examples...
Some wag has quipped that the plural of anecdote is not data.

There are always examples, usually benefitting from hindsight. But evaluating future company performance is difficult, check out “A Random Walk Down Wallstreet”.
Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future - Niels Bohr | To get the "risk premium", you really do have to take the risk - nisiprius

Workable Goblin
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 8:37 pm

Re: Only Good Argument Against Indexed Funds

Post by Workable Goblin » Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:57 pm

David Jay wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:45 pm
Some wag has quipped that the plural of anecdote is not data.
Some wag, indeed. But an anecdote is quite enough to prove that in some cases things turn out a certain way, which is all that's being looked for here. In some cases it is absolutely possible to see that management is making bad decisions that the shareholders ought not go along with.
David Jay wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:45 pm
There are always examples, usually benefitting from hindsight. But evaluating future company performance is difficult, check out “A Random Walk Down Wallstreet”.
Of course it's difficult, that doesn't mean that we can't be skeptical that paying a 72-year old man in poor health $84 million to become CEO is a good idea. Or, for that matter, whether giving a CEO a 100%+ raise after running a company into the ground as opposed to firing them is wise. Actually, the difficulty of evaluating future company performance tends to make the article's point sharper, because why should we expect management to have any clue as to improving future company performance, as opposed to the much easier task of lining their own pockets? (Indeed, nearly all of the examples cited had to do with pay packages) Shouldn't we then be very skeptical of all management proposals, instead of overwhelmingly voting in favor of them?

User avatar
David Jay
Posts: 6992
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 5:54 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Only Good Argument Against Indexed Funds

Post by David Jay » Thu Oct 10, 2019 8:47 am

Workable Goblin wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:57 pm
David Jay wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:45 pm
Some wag has quipped that the plural of anecdote is not data.
Some wag, indeed. But an anecdote is quite enough to prove that in some cases things turn out a certain way, which is all that's being looked for here. In some cases it is absolutely possible to see that management is making bad decisions that the shareholders ought not go along with.
David Jay wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:45 pm
There are always examples, usually benefitting from hindsight. But evaluating future company performance is difficult, check out “A Random Walk Down Wallstreet”.
Of course it's difficult, that doesn't mean that we can't be skeptical that paying a 72-year old man in poor health $84 million to become CEO is a good idea. Or, for that matter, whether giving a CEO a 100%+ raise after running a company into the ground as opposed to firing them is wise. Actually, the difficulty of evaluating future company performance tends to make the article's point sharper, because why should we expect management to have any clue as to improving future company performance, as opposed to the much easier task of lining their own pockets? (Indeed, nearly all of the examples cited had to do with pay packages) Shouldn't we then be very skeptical of all management proposals, instead of overwhelmingly voting in favor of them?
Management does lots of “stupid” things that do not take the form of proposals to shareholders.
Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future - Niels Bohr | To get the "risk premium", you really do have to take the risk - nisiprius

firebirdparts
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:21 pm

Re: Only Good Argument Against Indexed Funds

Post by firebirdparts » Thu Oct 10, 2019 2:08 pm

I always go back in my mind to Bob Nardelli being paid $210 million to "please go away". Has anybody ever topped that? Of course he made about $240. Evidently the directors thought he was worth that. I mean, before they fired him.

JBTX
Posts: 5418
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 12:46 pm

Re: Only Good Argument Against Indexed Funds

Post by JBTX » Thu Oct 10, 2019 4:23 pm

Poorly run companies are likely value stocks. Presumably the price reflects this.

In terms of other funds based upon various value judgments, that's fine if you want to go there, but not all values are important to everybody. Also, it is easier to be "green" if you are a tech web company vs a manufacturer.

Geologist
Posts: 1288
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 7:35 pm

Re: Only Good Argument Against Indexed Funds

Post by Geologist » Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:11 pm

There have been a number of posters saying that there are poorly run companies. Of course, there are.

However, what reason do we have to believe that managers of active funds can change the behavior of poorly performing companies or avoid them? It is not enough to assert that they could do so. Where is the evidence that they do it? There are decades of history of active funds and they haven’t outperformed. That is enough evidence for me that active managers aren’t effective at this.

Post Reply