Yeah, active investors are providing a valuable service to everyone else, both by exploiting genuine asymmetries, and by collectively generating a signal in the Uncle George sense. People sometimes worry about the passive revolution for this reason, but the vast majority of funds under management are still active, and human nature being what it is, there will presumably always be plenty of people willing to have a crack.
the vast majority of funds under management are still active
Is this true? A quick search suggests not:
With actively managed U.S. stock funds posting outflows in 11 out of the last 12 years, and an unbroken streak of inflows for passively managed U.S. stock funds, assets in index-tracking strategies have caught up with those in active funds.
Our latest U.S. fund flows report shows that at the end of April [2019], both passive and active U.S. equity funds had a total of about $4.3 trillion in assets, essentially reaching asset parity.
Huh, I got that from a recent Bloomberg article which says 15:1...not sure who’s right or why the numbers are so different.
Active management in the equity market, both in the U.S. and abroad, is dominant. And not by a little: Active management in the U.S. trounces passive by a ratio of 8-to-1 in dollar investments. Expand that to include the entire world, and the ratio is closer to 15-to-1. If we include fixed income in our calculations, the ratio balloons to 60-to-1.
I think the reason not to worry too much about the passive revolution is that as long as there are money-making opportunities from active trading—people will be incentivized to do it. The end state “everyone is passive—there is no price signal” is not one we can reach from where we are, and it is not a stable equilibrium. If we ever did cross over into “too few hedge funds”, there would such a strong incentive for more, that I don’t think it would last long. But perhaps I misunderstand this critique.
Yeah, active investors are providing a valuable service to everyone else, both by exploiting genuine asymmetries, and by collectively generating a signal in the Uncle George sense. People sometimes worry about the passive revolution for this reason, but the vast majority of funds under management are still active, and human nature being what it is, there will presumably always be plenty of people willing to have a crack.
Is this true? A quick search suggests not:
https://www.morningstar.com/insights/2019/06/12/asset-parity
Huh, I got that from a recent Bloomberg article which says 15:1...not sure who’s right or why the numbers are so different.
I think the reason not to worry too much about the passive revolution is that as long as there are money-making opportunities from active trading—people will be incentivized to do it. The end state “everyone is passive—there is no price signal” is not one we can reach from where we are, and it is not a stable equilibrium. If we ever did cross over into “too few hedge funds”, there would such a strong incentive for more, that I don’t think it would last long. But perhaps I misunderstand this critique.