Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
-
- Posts: 1405
- Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 7:12 am
Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
I'm not sure if a thread has started on this most recent Rational Reminder podcast. (Episode 332 - Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?, Nov 21, 2024, https://rationalreminder.ca/podcast/332).
There was an earlier thread discussing Green's appearance there on the same issue. But now they brought in Randy Cohen from Harvard to more or less debate, or discuss the issues here with Green. The earlier thread is here: viewtopic.php?t=430546 .
The discussion was civil. I got about half way through it before deciding I need help understanding this. There are a lot of points here, and, apparently, no conclusions were reached, according to what was said in the introduction.
Among ideas I think I've absorbed so far, Green is saying that things have changed, largely because now institutions are basically required to put employees' retirement funds into 60-40 index funds. This drives up the price of the most expensive stocks, he says, by reducing their volatility (and so less risky, and so their values go up). Cohen argues that these moneys were going into 60-40 funds anyway, before it because the default approach. Green thinks that one upshot is that stocks are overvalued substantially, by as much as 50%, IIRC. Cohen disagrees. They got into a discussion of present values of these investments, with Green saying they increase at x 1.06 (approximately) each year, with Cohen arguing that the 6% factor has a certain half life, so it's x 1.06 the first year, and then it goes down each year.
Green argues that indexing, while good for individuals, has a societal cost. Money might otherwise go to helping local communities, for example, he says.
It's complicated because these guys are well read and refer to some of the literature, and have different interpretations of that literature.
I'm hoping that the cognoscetti here can distill this discussion down into an answer(s) to the basic question: is there anything actionable here, and, if so, what, and why?
There was an earlier thread discussing Green's appearance there on the same issue. But now they brought in Randy Cohen from Harvard to more or less debate, or discuss the issues here with Green. The earlier thread is here: viewtopic.php?t=430546 .
The discussion was civil. I got about half way through it before deciding I need help understanding this. There are a lot of points here, and, apparently, no conclusions were reached, according to what was said in the introduction.
Among ideas I think I've absorbed so far, Green is saying that things have changed, largely because now institutions are basically required to put employees' retirement funds into 60-40 index funds. This drives up the price of the most expensive stocks, he says, by reducing their volatility (and so less risky, and so their values go up). Cohen argues that these moneys were going into 60-40 funds anyway, before it because the default approach. Green thinks that one upshot is that stocks are overvalued substantially, by as much as 50%, IIRC. Cohen disagrees. They got into a discussion of present values of these investments, with Green saying they increase at x 1.06 (approximately) each year, with Cohen arguing that the 6% factor has a certain half life, so it's x 1.06 the first year, and then it goes down each year.
Green argues that indexing, while good for individuals, has a societal cost. Money might otherwise go to helping local communities, for example, he says.
It's complicated because these guys are well read and refer to some of the literature, and have different interpretations of that literature.
I'm hoping that the cognoscetti here can distill this discussion down into an answer(s) to the basic question: is there anything actionable here, and, if so, what, and why?
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
It is intuitive to me that indexing increases volatility. Since that is the opposite of the claim above, maybe the effect on volatility is less than obvious?
My logic is that indexing is equivalent to leveraging all non-indexed trades. That cranks volatility up. Am I wrong?
(Example: Say 50% of the stock is indexed. Selling a share would result in twice the movement than without indexing, since an indexed mirror share was also sold.)
My logic is that indexing is equivalent to leveraging all non-indexed trades. That cranks volatility up. Am I wrong?
(Example: Say 50% of the stock is indexed. Selling a share would result in twice the movement than without indexing, since an indexed mirror share was also sold.)
VT & chill
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
Michael Green first appeared on the Rational Reminder podcast in episode 302. In that episode, when asked what the individual investor should do, his response was “For the average investor investing in Vanguard funds, nothing. You keep investing in index funds.”valleyrock wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 5:30 pm
I'm hoping that the cognoscetti here can distill this discussion down into an answer(s) to the basic question: is there anything actionable here, and, if so, what, and why?
“My opinions are just that - opinions.”
-
- Posts: 17108
- Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
It is actionable for me-- I actively ignore Michael Green. I don't consider his arguments to be valid.valleyrock wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 5:30 pm is there anything actionable here[/u], and, if so, what, and why?
-
- Posts: 1405
- Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 7:12 am
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
I think he's saying that with so much indexing, with the indexes purchasing stocks on a market capitalization basis, the prices of the high market cap stocks are going to go upward the most, others less so. That seems intuitive. This kind of axiomatic increase in prices lowers volatility, which, according to theory, lowers risk. On the other hand, things seem riskier when the prices are driven up, not by fundamentals of the businesses, but by this guaranteed purchasing of the securities. Not that I understand a lot of this. And we'll understand matters much better in 25 years, as one of them points out in the podcast(!)bh1 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 6:38 pm It is intuitive to me that indexing increases volatility. Since that is the opposite of the claim above, maybe the effect on volatility is less than obvious?
My logic is that indexing is equivalent to leveraging all non-indexed trades. That cranks volatility up. Am I wrong?
(Example: Say 50% of the stock is indexed. Selling a share would result in twice the movement than without indexing, since an indexed mirror share was also sold.)
Good it's been pointed out that there's nothing actionable here according to the proponent of this thinking. If that's the case, then we can I suppose relax and leave the discussions to others. OTOH, there will likely be some responses to this podcast and the accompanying ideas by academics and others who've studied the literature these guys understand. So it might be helpful to keep our ears to the ground.
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
Of course there is. If you buy Green’s argument you can move your indexed investments to active managers who have lower allocations to large capitalization equities (think mid-cap or small-cap oriented managers). You can also lower your allocation to equities in general, or embrace “value” oriented equities, or some combination of the two.Northern Flicker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 11:51 pmIt is actionable for me-- I actively ignore Michael Green. I don't consider his arguments to be valid.valleyrock wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 5:30 pm is there anything actionable here[/u], and, if so, what, and why?
As to the “why”, it’s obvious that IF equities are 50% overvalued, a smaller allocation to equities reduces the risk of loss. Seems actionable to me.
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
Cap-weighted investing is the only allocation that doesn't affect the relative prices of stocks. After adding more index funds, the market as a whole goes up, but the relative weightings of the stocks remained the same.valleyrock wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 6:27 amI think he's saying that with so much indexing, with the indexes purchasing stocks on a market capitalization basis, the prices of the high market cap stocks are going to go upward the most, others less so. That seems intuitive. This kind of axiomatic increase in prices lowers volatility, which, according to theory, lowers risk. On the other hand, things seem riskier when the prices are driven up, not by fundamentals of the businesses, but by this guaranteed purchasing of the securities. Not that I understand a lot of this. And we'll understand matters much better in 25 years, as one of them points out in the podcast(!)bh1 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 6:38 pm It is intuitive to me that indexing increases volatility. Since that is the opposite of the claim above, maybe the effect on volatility is less than obvious?
My logic is that indexing is equivalent to leveraging all non-indexed trades. That cranks volatility up. Am I wrong?
(Example: Say 50% of the stock is indexed. Selling a share would result in twice the movement than without indexing, since an indexed mirror share was also sold.)
Good it's been pointed out that there's nothing actionable here according to the proponent of this thinking. If that's the case, then we can I suppose relax and leave the discussions to others. OTOH, there will likely be some responses to this podcast and the accompanying ideas by academics and others who've studied the literature these guys understand. So it might be helpful to keep our ears to the ground.
Seems like the entire point of this podcast is to obfuscate, not clarify.
VT & chill
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
Green's argument is an extreme assumption of inefficient markets. Do index funds brainlessly drive up prices in a manner that the rest of the market doesn't properly account for? I don't see the evidence to support this claim. For example, why have European stocks lagged US stocks so badly despite the growth of index funds there? Why have tech stocks in the USA outperformed the rest of the index by so much? There are logical and empirical answers to these questions that aren't consistent with the theory that index funds mindlessly drive up prices. The tech sector alone debunks this nonsense view because tech has fundamentally outperformed everything. Their extraordinary growth is consistent with their booming EPS. And the rest of the index (and global equities) have lagged for fundamental reasons.
Index funds work. They're working exactly as we'd expect them to and high fee fund managers criticizing them should be ignored.
Index funds work. They're working exactly as we'd expect them to and high fee fund managers criticizing them should be ignored.
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
Considering Americans can barely afford to retire even with these investments, I think its fine. If anything I want to see more people investing for retirement
“The stock market is a device for transferring money from the impatient to the patient.” - Warren Buffet |
Don't performance chase with America. Hold everything at market weight.
-
- Posts: 17108
- Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
What that is acting on is the weighting of megacaps in indices, not on Mr. Green's argument. Index funds buy stocks in proportion to their liquidity. That should not be responsible driving up the prices of megacaps.dkturner wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 9:22 amOf course there is. If you buy Green’s argument you can move your indexed investments to active managers who have lower allocations to large capitalization equities (think mid-cap or small-cap oriented managers). You can also lower your allocation to equities in general, or embrace “value” oriented equities, or some combination of the two.Northern Flicker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 11:51 pm
It is actionable for me-- I actively ignore Michael Green. I don't consider his arguments to be valid.
As to the “why”, it’s obvious that IF equities are 50% overvalued, a smaller allocation to equities reduces the risk of loss. Seems actionable to me.
- arcticpineapplecorp.
- Posts: 16635
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:22 pm
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
the argument is that index funds are either making the market less efficient or driving up prices.valleyrock wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 5:30 pm I'm hoping that the cognoscetti here can distill this discussion down into an answer(s) to the basic question: is there anything actionable here, and, if so, what, and why?
But index funds aren't price makers. They're price takers. Index funds don't set the prices. They have to buy at the market price. Individual traders are setting the prices (this could be individual investors, hedge fund managers, active managed mutual fund managers, endowment fund managers or pension fund managers).
These individuals are deciding the prices of the stocks that make up the market.
If the price is wrong, then won't the traders eventually get to the "right" price? (and then indexers benefit as a result).
if so, then how is it that the index is distorting those prices? The index is reflecting the prices already determined by the traders.
Last edited by arcticpineapplecorp. on Sun Nov 24, 2024 7:56 pm, edited 1 time 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 |
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
I'm struggling to see the connection here. What money? The management fees?valleyrock wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 5:30 pm Green argues that indexing, while good for individuals, has a societal cost. Money might otherwise go to helping local communities, for example, he says.
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
It supports the price.
"The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty; not knowing what comes next." ~Ursula LeGuin
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
Sorry, but I can't turn that into anything meaningful. What do you mean by 'support'? The price of what?
VT & chill
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
Inflows into broad market index funds support the price of the stocks held by those funds.
"The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty; not knowing what comes next." ~Ursula LeGuin
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
What does 'support' mean? Can you add some math to this concept?
VT & chill
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
Here, it means to increase demand, but it affects all stocks equally because the funds hold them all. Markets match supply and demand, and price goes up when demand increases.
If shoppers want to buy more turkey and less beef, the price of turkey will go up relative to beef. If investors want to buy a larger share of Microsoft than of Ford, the price of Microsoft will go up relative to Ford; however, that isn't what happens when indexers hold the same share of both Microsoft and Ford. (Rather, it is what happens when investors want to sell Ford at the current market price and buy Microsoft, which is what many non-index investors do.)
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
Agreed. But there is an implication above (in the podcast?) that larger companies are somehow "supported" more than smaller ones.grabiner wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 10:50 pmHere, it means to increase demand, but it affects all stocks equally because the funds hold them all. Markets match supply and demand, and price goes up when demand increases.
If shoppers want to buy more turkey and less beef, the price of turkey will go up relative to beef. If investors want to buy a larger share of Microsoft than of Ford, the price of Microsoft will go up relative to Ford; however, that isn't what happens when indexers hold the same share of both Microsoft and Ford. (Rather, it is what happens when investors want to sell Ford at the current market price and buy Microsoft, which is what many non-index investors do.)
VT & chill
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
And I don't agree with that implication. (In theory, there might be an effect when corporations join the S&P 500, because a lot of index money is linked to that index, but there wouldn't be an effect between different corporations in the S&P 500.)bh1 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 10:53 pmAgreed. But there is an implication above (in the podcast?) that larger companies are somehow "supported" more than smaller ones.grabiner wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 10:50 pm
Here, it means to increase demand, but it affects all stocks equally because the funds hold them all. Markets match supply and demand, and price goes up when demand increases.
If shoppers want to buy more turkey and less beef, the price of turkey will go up relative to beef. If investors want to buy a larger share of Microsoft than of Ford, the price of Microsoft will go up relative to Ford; however, that isn't what happens when indexers hold the same share of both Microsoft and Ford. (Rather, it is what happens when investors want to sell Ford at the current market price and buy Microsoft, which is what many non-index investors do.)
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
They're supported in proportion to their share of market capitalization.
"The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty; not knowing what comes next." ~Ursula LeGuin
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
As they should be. Index funds maintain the relative capitalization of companies, and thus have no direct effect on relative stock prices.
VT & chill
-
- Posts: 1405
- Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 7:12 am
-
- Posts: 17108
- Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
The same proportion of 401K inflows would flow into stocks whether or not index funds were in the plans to receive them, and in aggregate across all 401K participants they would look a lot like the market index either way.
- firebirdparts
- Posts: 4815
- Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:21 pm
- Location: Southern Appalachia
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
You are 100% right. Indexing increases volatility because half the stock is owned by people who won't trade on price. This is fundamental.bh1 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 6:38 pm It is intuitive to me that indexing increases volatility. Since that is the opposite of the claim above, maybe the effect on volatility is less than obvious?
My logic is that indexing is equivalent to leveraging all non-indexed trades. That cranks volatility up. Am I wrong?
Fund inflows and outflows are very real, but you've noticed that for the last 40 years, people, even people who think they're geniuses, get hooked into this idea that it's all inflows and that's all we need to ever talk about.
refusing to trade based on price wouldn't necessarily drive prices "up". There are clearly two possibilities. To me, anybody who says there is more money going into stocks because of indexing is just not very smart. He may have a Nobel prize, I don't care. That's not smart.
The increase in money going into the stock market has almost nothing to do with indexing. Lots of factors, but not that.
This time is the same
-
- Posts: 329
- Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 10:16 pm
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
People mindlessly buy stocks in the index, artificially lifting their prices. This eventually produces losses. On the other hand, people mindlessly sell stocks that get kicked out of the index, artificially lowering their prices. This eventually produces gains. If you want to outperform the market, the actionable advice is to create your own index of companies kicked out of the index.valleyrock wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 5:30 pm I'm not sure if a thread has started on this most recent Rational Reminder podcast. (Episode 332 - Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?, Nov 21, 2024, https://rationalreminder.ca/podcast/332).
There was an earlier thread discussing Green's appearance there on the same issue. But now they brought in Randy Cohen from Harvard to more or less debate, or discuss the issues here with Green. The earlier thread is here: viewtopic.php?t=430546 .
The discussion was civil. I got about half way through it before deciding I need help understanding this. There are a lot of points here, and, apparently, no conclusions were reached, according to what was said in the introduction.
Among ideas I think I've absorbed so far, Green is saying that things have changed, largely because now institutions are basically required to put employees' retirement funds into 60-40 index funds. This drives up the price of the most expensive stocks, he says, by reducing their volatility (and so less risky, and so their values go up). Cohen argues that these moneys were going into 60-40 funds anyway, before it because the default approach. Green thinks that one upshot is that stocks are overvalued substantially, by as much as 50%, IIRC. Cohen disagrees. They got into a discussion of present values of these investments, with Green saying they increase at x 1.06 (approximately) each year, with Cohen arguing that the 6% factor has a certain half life, so it's x 1.06 the first year, and then it goes down each year.
Green argues that indexing, while good for individuals, has a societal cost. Money might otherwise go to helping local communities, for example, he says.
It's complicated because these guys are well read and refer to some of the literature, and have different interpretations of that literature.
I'm hoping that the cognoscetti here can distill this discussion down into an answer(s) to the basic question: is there anything actionable here, and, if so, what, and why?
https://fortune.com/2024/08/18/beat-sp5 ... 1000-nixt/
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
He addressed this on another podcast...maybe it was on the compound and friends. The larger issue is that index funds are becoming "non diversified" (at least large cap ones) and can be by rule. whereas many active funds are bound by diversification rules. But I think Josh Browns argument was funds being "non diversified" vs "diversified" used to be a much bigger deal than it is today. Fidelity has begun making a number of their funds "non diversified" so it can follow index trends to keep up.
But the larger point of the conversation was that total market or market representative (whether you are talking about total US, SP500, or total World) still only makes up a fraction of the overall equity investing world and therefore this is something that might require regulatory addressing at some point but otherwise there isn't much actionable things for the every day investor to do.
But the larger point of the conversation was that total market or market representative (whether you are talking about total US, SP500, or total World) still only makes up a fraction of the overall equity investing world and therefore this is something that might require regulatory addressing at some point but otherwise there isn't much actionable things for the every day investor to do.
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
It still supports the price, though.firebirdparts wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2024 12:16 pm refusing to trade based on price wouldn't necessarily drive prices "up"
It's not that it drives the price "up"; it keeps the price from going "down" below a certain level.
When you get fund outflows, the support is removed.
"The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty; not knowing what comes next." ~Ursula LeGuin
-
- Posts: 17108
- Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
When sellers/selling outpace buyers/buying for the stocks in the market, the support is removed. The cash flows for particular funds/containers of those stocks is not what matters.Beensabu wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2024 2:09 pmIt still supports the price, though.firebirdparts wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2024 12:16 pm refusing to trade based on price wouldn't necessarily drive prices "up"
It's not that it drives the price "up"; it keeps the price from going "down" below a certain level.
When you get fund outflows, the support is removed.
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
It does when the containers hold the majority of outstanding shares.Northern Flicker wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2024 4:03 pm The cash flows for particular funds/containers of those stocks is not what matters.
"The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty; not knowing what comes next." ~Ursula LeGuin
-
- Posts: 17108
- Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
Even leaving aside the fact that they don't hold a majority, it still is a red herring. When a large number of investors want to get out of stocks, they sell broadly, whether in index funds, individual stocks, or other types of funds. The aggregate mix being sold off across all of these investments will look a lot like a market index even with a low share in index funds.Beensabu wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2024 4:38 pmIt does when the containers hold the majority of outstanding shares.Northern Flicker wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2024 4:03 pm The cash flows for particular funds/containers of those stocks is not what matters.
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
They do in aggregate, across brokerages.Northern Flicker wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2024 6:14 pm Even leaving aside the fact that they don't hold a majority, it still is a red herring.
Totally.Northern Flicker wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2024 6:14 pm The aggregate mix being sold off across all of these investments will look a lot like a market index even with a low share in index funds.
It's not an index fund thing.
It's a 401k contributions into aggressive asset allocations thing.
"The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty; not knowing what comes next." ~Ursula LeGuin
-
- Posts: 17108
- Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
Numbers I've seen are several years old, but had about 25% of free float indexed. Mutual funds and ETFs are not the whole market.Beensabu wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2024 8:28 pmThey do in aggregate, across brokerages.Northern Flicker wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2024 6:14 pm Even leaving aside the fact that they don't hold a majority, it still is a red herring.
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
Free float is non-institutionally held shares. Mutual funds are institutional ownership.Northern Flicker wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2024 10:04 pmNumbers I've seen are several years old, but had about 25% of free float indexed. Mutual funds and ETFs are not the whole market.
"The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty; not knowing what comes next." ~Ursula LeGuin
-
- Posts: 17108
- Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
Free float does not exclude institutional ownership. It excludes shares that cannot be sold without some restriction being cleared.Beensabu wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2024 11:15 pmFree float is non-institutionally held shares. Mutual funds are institutional ownership.Northern Flicker wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2024 10:04 pm
Numbers I've seen are several years old, but had about 25% of free float indexed. Mutual funds and ETFs are not the whole market.
Some info:
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/r ... ree-float/
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
I stand corrected. Thank you.Northern Flicker wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2024 12:07 pmFree float does not exclude institutional ownership. It excludes shares that cannot be sold without some restriction being cleared.
Some info:
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/r ... ree-float/
It doesn't matter at all that the index fund share of the US market is currently a bit over 50% (80% of which is held by three firms) or that mutual funds with low turnover are long-term holders of shares that trade rarely. There is absolutely nothing to see here.
"The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty; not knowing what comes next." ~Ursula LeGuin
-
- Posts: 17108
- Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
That also is false. Index funds may have 50% of mutual fund and ETF assets, but not 50% of the US market, which is much deeper than just what is in funds.Beensabu wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2024 1:41 pmI stand corrected. Thank you.Northern Flicker wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2024 12:07 pm
Free float does not exclude institutional ownership. It excludes shares that cannot be sold without some restriction being cleared.
Some info:
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/r ... ree-float/
It doesn't matter at all that the index fund share of the US market is currently a bit over 50%...
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
Thanks for that correction as well.Northern Flicker wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2024 2:25 pm That also is false. Index funds may have 50% of mutual fund and ETF assets, but not 50% of the US market, which is much deeper than just what is in funds.
Looks like institutions (which includes more than mutual funds and ETFs) hold 80% of US equity market cap. Unless that is also false? Feel free to let us know if so.
"The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty; not knowing what comes next." ~Ursula LeGuin
-
- Posts: 17108
- Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
The size of the institutionally held share of the market does not help confirm or disaffirm Mr. Green's point.
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
Really? I thought his point was about price blind buying in combination with long-term holding causing a market distortion.Northern Flicker wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2024 6:23 pm The size of the institutionally held share of the market does not help confirm or disaffirm Mr. Green's point.
"The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty; not knowing what comes next." ~Ursula LeGuin
-
- Posts: 17108
- Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
The institutional share of the market is neither the share of the market held by mutual funds and ETFs nor the share of the market that is indexed. Institutional holdings are both indexed and active. About 25% of the market was indexed in 2019. I have not seen 2024 numbers, but there still should leave about 75% to do price discovery and arbitrage away mispricings.Beensabu wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2024 10:55 amReally? I thought his point was about price blind buying in combination with long-term holding causing a market distortion.Northern Flicker wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2024 6:23 pm The size of the institutionally held share of the market does not help confirm or disaffirm Mr. Green's point.
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
And what percentage of non-indexed institutional investments are internally indexed or closet indexed?Northern Flicker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2024 12:52 pmThe institutional share of the market is neither the share of the market held by mutual funds and ETFs nor the share of the market that is indexed. Institutional holdings are both indexed and active. About 25% of the market was indexed in 2019. I have not seen 2024 numbers, but there still should leave about 75% to do price discovery and arbitrage away mispricings.
Passive investing is not just index funds.
"The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty; not knowing what comes next." ~Ursula LeGuin
-
- Posts: 17108
- Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
If someone wants to claim that passive investing is hampering price discovery, they need to present solid evidence of that, not speculations of behavior with varying levels of generality. I would suggest that you try to answer your own questions to see where it leads rather than asking others to analyze whether the speculations have any merit.Beensabu wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2024 1:54 pmAnd what percentage of non-indexed institutional investments are internally indexed or closet indexed?Northern Flicker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2024 12:52 pm
The institutional share of the market is neither the share of the market held by mutual funds and ETFs nor the share of the market that is indexed. Institutional holdings are both indexed and active. About 25% of the market was indexed in 2019. I have not seen 2024 numbers, but there still should leave about 75% to do price discovery and arbitrage away mispricings.
Passive investing is not just index funds.
If market participants know of mispricings, they will arbitrage them away rapidly. If mispricings are present, but unknown, active management does not help the investor.
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
Passive Investing and the Rise of Mega-Firms - https://www.nber.org/system/files/worki ... w28253.pdfNorthern Flicker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2024 3:33 pm If someone wants to claim that passive investing is hampering price discovery, they need to present solid evidence of that, not speculations of behavior with varying levels of generality.
US Equities: Approaching Peak Passive and the Implications for Active - https://www.man.com/maninstitute/us-equities
"The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty; not knowing what comes next." ~Ursula LeGuin
-
- Posts: 17108
- Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
That states that passive investing was 54% of investment fund products, but only 16% of the market in 2021. The claim that this is enough to distort pricing and/or increase volatility of megacaps is interesting. I still would expect there to be market participants trying to exploit that and prices to be brought back in line rapidly. Maybe it is worth it for 401K contributions to land in a money market fund, and be invested say 2 weeks later. I'm skeptical that would make a measurable difference.Beensabu wrote: ↑Thu Nov 28, 2024 1:19 pmPassive Investing and the Rise of Mega-Firms - https://www.nber.org/system/files/worki ... w28253.pdfNorthern Flicker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2024 3:33 pm If someone wants to claim that passive investing is hampering price discovery, they need to present solid evidence of that, not speculations of behavior with varying levels of generality.
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
When there's a wave breaking over you, you either let it crash on you, ride it, or dive under it.Northern Flicker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2024 3:33 pm If market participants know of mispricings, they will arbitrage them away rapidly. If mispricings are present, but unknown, active management does not help the investor.
Shorting momentum to the upside is the crash; closet indexing is the ride; skipping the action is diving through.
Only one of these options keeps inflows coming.
"The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty; not knowing what comes next." ~Ursula LeGuin
-
- Posts: 17108
- Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am
Re: Podcast:Randolph Cohen & Michael Green: How Concerned Should We Be About Index Funds?
We don't know that indexing in 401Ks is having any effect whatsoever. 401K contributions would be flowing into stocks, and in aggregate would look a lot like a market index even if index funds were not used. In aggregate, we might even see more funds not less flowing to large caps without indexing in use.Beensabu wrote: ↑Thu Nov 28, 2024 10:14 pmWhen there's a wave breaking over you, you either let it crash on you, ride it, or dive under it.Northern Flicker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2024 3:33 pm If market participants know of mispricings, they will arbitrage them away rapidly. If mispricings are present, but unknown, active management does not help the investor.
Shorting momentum to the upside is the crash; closet indexing is the ride; skipping the action is diving through.
Only one of these options keeps inflows coming.