Recent Blog Posts
-
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:04am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:04am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:04am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:04am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:04pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:04am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:04am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:04pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:04pm EDT -
Introducing the New Ford Squeeze
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
Non-Economic Questions of the Day
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
The Stress Test Blind Alley
Apr 24 20098:04am EDT -
Happy Hour
Apr 23 20099:04pm EDT -
Recovery Without Rebalancing
Apr 23 20096:04pm EDT -
The Shape of Your Recession
Apr 23 20095:04pm EDT
Links
- Felix Salmon

- DealBreaker

- Ryan Avent: The Bellows

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Chris Anderson

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- MarketBeat

- Michelle Leder

- John Quiggin

- The Panelist

- Andrew Leonard

- Streetsblog

- Brad Setser

- Michael Mandel

- Financial Crookery

- Kash Mansori

- Dean Baker

- Calculated Risk

- Free Exchange

- Curbed

- Lance Knobel

- Econospeak

- Carbon Tax Center

- Overcoming Bias

- Mark Thoma

- Naked Capitalism

- Alphaville

- Barry Ritholtz

- Alexander Campbell

- The Bayesian Heresy

- Brad DeLong

- DealBook

- Greg Mankiw

- Deal Journal

- FP Passport

- Carl Bialik

- Marginal Revolution

- A Fistful of Euros

- Dan Gross

The Negative Externalities of Index Funds
Steve Waldman doesn't like it when I defend passive investing. If everybody moved to a passive-investment style, he asks, then where would we be? We need active investors to make efficient markets and set prices. Passive investors, he says quite rightly, are free-riders:
Passive investors pay none of the costs of generating good investment decisions, but enjoy the benefits by free-riding on the work of others...
Advising people to buy index funds rather than select investments is akin to advising people not to vote, since the cost of voting far exceeds any individual benefit. Those who don't vote get the same government everyone else does, but at lower cost!
Steve goes even further in the comments:
It's a lot like greenhouse gasses, really. Tallying the aggregate "costs" of active investing is like enumerating the costs of reducing CO2 emissions without figuring in any kind of benefit. Advising people to go passive is like telling people to ignore their carbon footprint, because by doing so you'll come out ahead of those who conserve (you'll live in the same world, but bear fewer costs).
Scolding people not to go passive may be a fool's errand, so long as the individual cost/benefit looks good. But broad encouragement of behavior that has clear (if hard to quantify) external costs as though it were a virtue, because, hey, it won't cost you anything, strikes me as a bad idea.
Except the amount of active investing has been going up even as the amount of passive investing has been going up. When John Bogle started the Vanguard Group, the amount of active investing was a fraction of what it is today. And in most cases it makes perfect sense for small retail investors to go the passive route anyway, just because those investors don't have the kind of risk appetite needed to be an active investor.
My feeling is that we're a very, very long way from the point at which passive investments carry significant negative externalities. Already we've reached the point at which active investors front-run index changes and do all manner of year-end index arbitrage, seeking to profit from passive investors' passivity. All power to them, I say. Passive investors will always underperform the market as a whole by a little bit: they have to pay some management fees, after all. So the market as a whole actually outperforms passive investors. As long as that money's on the table, I'm not going to lose any sleep about free-riding on hedge funds doing price discovery.






