Re: The Mutual Funds Thread Quote:
Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal See, the passive investing makes sense only when a small percentage of people are doing it. |
Yes. This is absolutely the point. To get slightly academic, passive investing works on basis that markets are "perfect", at least in the long run & beating the markets is futile. However this theory is premised on fact that alert active investors will spot any imperfection & rush to act on it, thus making it evaporate and keeping markets perfect.
Example: A stock trading far above its "fair value" - investors will rush to sell/short it and price will come down to fair value quickly. Any "breaking news" will also quickly get "priced-in" to stock price in the same way. Hence the theory that Mr. Average Joe is better off investing in passive funds, paying less fees and reaping "market" returns. And that no fund manager can consistently "beat the markets". But, imagine a world where passive fund flows crowd-out active funds/investors by a factor of 3x, 4x, 5x or more?
When this happens, active money "loses its voice". Actions of passive fund - with thier much larger weight of money - start dictating stock prices. A passive fund blindly invests in all stocks of thier chosen "index". If a company suffers an adverse event, normally active fund managers would rush to sell and beat down the price. Passive fund managers would get the company at that "beaten-down" price. But that won't happen anymore! as active fund managers aren't moving the markets anymore. Passive funds don't sell at all, in fact keeps buying each time new money flows into the fund and keep prices shored up.
The party stops only if and when the index-manager (example BSE for Sensex, NSE for Nifty etc) decides to remove the stock from index or reduce its weightage.
Now Index managers have historically used stock price movements (market caps of companies) as a trigger for any such actions. It is not an index manager's job to decide "fair value" of a company. So if stock prices are stable (thanks to passive fund flows), they index managers may not take any action. (Also note the level of power than an index managers gains here. Billions of dollars get allocated based on thier judgement alone!) Another scenario:
An Index has room for a limited number of companies. Imagine the Nasdaq-100 index just after a Google or Facebook IPO-es. These new listed behemoths have to be brought into the index. Which means some smaller index companies get booted out entirely and others see their weightage cut, for no fault of theirs. In fact they may have great prospects. As all passive investors start selling these stocks (they need to mirror the index), the price tanks. Normally active investors would start buying and hold prices up. But they are now small-fry and swamped by the tsunami of passive fund selling. So, the ultimate irony: - Passive fund performance relies on active funds dominating the markets and keeping stock prices "honest" (i.e. reflective of underlying business fundamentals)
- As passive funds' share of stock market activity grows, the markets are at risk of getting more and more skewed. Creating more and more opportunities for active investors.
- However, sheer weight & influence of passive fund money means that active investors may suffer horribly for a while, as market stay divorced from "true value" of stocks for a long time.
Last edited by gautam109 : 2nd March 2020 at 12:22.
Reason: formatting changes for readability, corrected typos
|