TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

A Professor Who Was Right About Index Funds All Along

287 点作者 carlosgg超过 8 年前

22 条评论

jbuzbee超过 8 年前
I&#x27;m a big believer in index funds and have been putting my money into them for a long time. But... you have to wonder where this is all ending up as more and more people move to passive index funds. The power of the market is based on millions of individual opinions on the price of a company&#x27;s stock. On average, over time, these collective opinions will be correct. But say in the extreme case, it got to the point where <i>all</i> funds were invested passively, we&#x27;d lose this pricing mechanism. Individual stock prices would not reflect the true value of a company. Instead, the price of each company&#x27;s stock, healthy and sick alike, would just rise and fall in synch with the market as a whole. But then perhaps this would be self-correcting as sophisticated investors would notice the pricing errors, create managed funds and the cycle would start anew...
评论 #12769212 未加载
评论 #12768885 未加载
评论 #12768874 未加载
评论 #12768769 未加载
评论 #12769136 未加载
评论 #12770756 未加载
评论 #12768720 未加载
评论 #12768957 未加载
评论 #12769773 未加载
评论 #12768777 未加载
评论 #12769342 未加载
评论 #12768727 未加载
评论 #12769828 未加载
评论 #12768938 未加载
评论 #12770712 未加载
评论 #12770095 未加载
评论 #12769190 未加载
评论 #12769305 未加载
评论 #12769628 未加载
评论 #12768728 未加载
评论 #12769461 未加载
评论 #12769015 未加载
评论 #12768772 未加载
评论 #12769042 未加载
shubhamjain超过 8 年前
Being lucky doesn&#x27;t explain the existence of Renaissance Technologies[1], one of the very first quant fund companies, which has averaged a 71.8% annual return from 1994 through mid-2014. In fact, &quot;the fund’s worst year was a 21 percent gain, after subtracting fees&quot;. Of course, it&#x27;s very much of an outlier — just like Facebook &#x2F; Google &#x2F; Uber, if we retrospectively see startup funding and hedge fund investing.<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Renaissance_Technologies" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Renaissance_Technologies</a>
评论 #12768626 未加载
评论 #12768623 未加载
评论 #12768673 未加载
评论 #12768617 未加载
评论 #12768955 未加载
评论 #12768614 未加载
评论 #12768771 未加载
评论 #12770713 未加载
评论 #12768830 未加载
评论 #12768618 未加载
评论 #12769127 未加载
评论 #12768725 未加载
lordnacho超过 8 年前
As someone who&#x27;s been at hedge funds for over a decade, I often wonder what I&#x27;d do if I just had ordinary access to the markets.<p>First of all, I have to ask why the equity market should be your benchmark. And if it&#x27;s because you think the market generally goes up (not obvious) why don&#x27;t you just get leverage on your ETF, so that you basically always beat the market?<p>There&#x27;s another way to beat the market. Smart beta products do variations of it, but here&#x27;s a concrete one. Basically my brother had some class about markets and needed something fast, so I just told him to take the S&amp;P 500, lop off the top 25% of stocks measured by beta, and scale up the rest. Ta-da. You&#x27;ll probably find costs are high, and there&#x27;s a bunch of admin, but I suspect there&#x27;s now a bunch of smart beta ETFs that do the same thing.<p>As for the EMH, I doubt that it&#x27;s true. The problem for ordinary people is you won&#x27;t be allowed to invest in strategies that are very good.<p>It makes sense for people on the inside: suppose I have a strategy, with a Sharpe &gt; 5, that uses very little capital. What am I going to do with that? Get investors? No, I&#x27;ll borrow money and take the profits myself.<p>What does that leave? A bunch of strategies with much less attractive risk profiles. If I have a Sharpe of around 1, I&#x27;m expecting long flat periods. I&#x27;ll have to get investors for that. But investors are fickle. One bad year and they flee, even though you should have one every few years. You could easily have a couple of losing years with that kind of Sharpe. So what do we find with that type of shop? They&#x27;re made of marketing. Box-checker salespeople who know what to say to institutional investors. IIs who buy IBM. Or are quick to jump the gun. &#x2F;rant
tedmiston超过 8 年前
Disclaimer (since it&#x27;s buried in the middle): Burton Malkiel is CIO at Wealthfront, one of the most popular robo-advisors.
Animats超过 8 年前
It would be interesting to have a fund which was mostly an index fund, but avoided &quot;losers&quot; based on simple criteria. Picking overpriced losers is easier than picking winners. (I did that for the first dot-com boom, at &quot;downside.com&quot;.) That&#x27;s a concept worth testing against historical data.
评论 #12770491 未加载
n72超过 8 年前
I recommend Weathfront and Betterment to all my less mathematically inclined friends. However, if you spend only a few hours getting acquainted with asset allocation and rebalancing principles, you can do pretty everything that these services do without their fees.
评论 #12770671 未加载
评论 #12769170 未加载
评论 #12769037 未加载
评论 #12768940 未加载
评论 #12769389 未加载
alecco超过 8 年前
Yeah, that is all fine a few decades back. But today we are experiencing huge bubbles caused by central banks.<p>Stocks are hyper-inflated by QE and near-zero rates. When all that stops it will pop violently. And sooner or later, they will have to stop. This affects bonds even more, of course.
redsparrow超过 8 年前
For Canadians interested in learning about index-based investing I recommend the Canadian Couch Potato site[0]. If you don&#x27;t want to put a lot of thought into it he has some sample portfolios, but also has a lot of resources for learning more. He&#x27;s also very good about answering questions in the comments on his posts.<p>[0] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;canadiancouchpotato.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;canadiancouchpotato.com&#x2F;</a>
grondilu超过 8 年前
Me, I don&#x27;t even believe in funds. If managers are not better than blindfolded monkeys, why should we even pay them? Just buy diversified stocks, and never sell unless you need cash.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Buy_and_hold" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Buy_and_hold</a>
评论 #12768688 未加载
评论 #12769284 未加载
评论 #12768657 未加载
评论 #12770249 未加载
评论 #12768679 未加载
paulpauper超过 8 年前
This is good advice. Despite the financial crisis of 2008, the S&amp;P 500 is still up 80% since 2005 after dividends
zachruss92超过 8 年前
I love articles like this. I get so frustrated when I see colleagues hire a financial advisor that sells them a &quot;managed portfolio&quot; that is on-par with it&#x27;s market comparable index and&#x2F;or sell them on products like annuities that make no financial sense whatsoever. And they charge 1%-1.5% of assets under management which can be 10x what something like Vanguard would charge you.<p>Personally, I use Betterment (a competitor to WealthFront) simply becasue I can set a target asset allocation, and they will balance my portfolio accordingly. The tax loss harvesting capabilities that both companies offer are really interesting, theoretically, but there is no empirical evidence either way as to whether it actually will save you money in the long-run. Before betterment, I invested in mid-large cap index funds from Vanguard.
petra超过 8 年前
One you decide to invest in an index fund, what &quot;advice&quot; needs to be automated ?
评论 #12768734 未加载
评论 #12768663 未加载
评论 #12768736 未加载
graycat超过 8 年前
&gt; “I can’t believe that the great mass of investors are going to be satisfied with an ultimate goal of just achieving average returns.”<p>Ah, instead he believes he can talk &quot;the vast majority of investors&quot; into believing that they can significantly beat &quot;average returns&quot;? Hmm. Maybe in Lake Wobegon.<p>IIRC the index fund idea, W. Sharpe&#x27;s work, etc. DOES need stock pickers also doing their best. Or, for anything with any promise in public a stock market, there has to be some smarts in there someplace. The reason throwing darts works so well is because of the stock pickers with the smarts working hard to buy the winners and sell the losers.
esqrama超过 8 年前
A discussion between the father of modern finance, Nobel prize winner Gene Fama, known for the Efficient Markets Hypthesis and his colleague and father of behavioral economics, Richard Thaler, of Chicago Booth, dissecting this question. <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;review.chicagobooth.edu&#x2F;economics&#x2F;2016&#x2F;video&#x2F;are-markets-efficient" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;review.chicagobooth.edu&#x2F;economics&#x2F;2016&#x2F;video&#x2F;are-mark...</a>
dpweb超过 8 年前
Returns are used to quantify results, but you can&#x27;t compare returns between a hedge fund or trading or market making operation - and a retail customer putting away their retirement money. Two entirely different operations at work that result in an overall annual return for each.<p>In buying a stock, you&#x27;re buying exposure to a number of factors that affect the stock price: the company, the money flows into&#x2F;out of that company&#x27;s industry, and the flows in&#x2F;out for stock market as a whole. In buying an index you get a more pure exposure to the stock market as a whole. When indexes do well, its only because money is flowing into it from other asset classes (or &quot;money printing&quot; by central banks).<p>Whether we should accept Efficient market hyposisis as explanation of Indexes beating pros, is a little more complicated. Yes, its true everyone has access to the same information. In fact, it&#x27;s illegal to trade on insider information.<p>However, when Indexes beat pros, people are quick to say, &#x27;yep.. Efficient market..&#x27;, but Indexes have support that the <i>individual</i> stocks or baskets don&#x27;t have. A pledged support by the Fed to print money to prop it up.<p>Take Wells Fargo. Maligned in the news, down stock price, but still a powerful bank. Buying the stock - not a irrational decision. But, will the Federal Govt let them go down? They didn&#x27;t AIG, but who knows. Now imagine the Index crashes, the Fed steps in. Indexes have the advantage here.
评论 #12769202 未加载
carlosgg超过 8 年前
What surprised me the most about the article was that Mr. Malkiel could still hold an executive position in such a competitive industry (sixth paragraph). I hope at least <i>some</i> of us here are chief-of-something at the age of <i>84</i>. :)
kolbe超过 8 年前
I&#x27;m going to use this as an opportunity to yet again rail against the idea of indexing. It&#x27;s a good thing in theory, but like most things, when it&#x27;s taken to extremes, it&#x27;s horrible.<p>Passive investments wherein the investor takes zero interest in these investments are and have always been a terrible idea, and nothing in modern history has facilitated this more than index funds. When you give a friend of a friend $10,000 to start a company, do you just hand it over no questions asked and with no follow-up? Or do you try to get engaged with your investment? Make sure the CEO isn&#x27;t sitting on his ass collecting a paycheck? Scrutinize it for potential frauds?<p>Well, that&#x27;s what you do in an index fund. Except it&#x27;s not even a friend of a friend that you&#x27;re trusting. It&#x27;s some group of people who likely live thousands of miles away who may or may not have an opiate or alcohol addiction or are complete sociopaths or are just regular humans who know how to legally take advantage of you when you aren&#x27;t paying attention.<p>You want to know why CEO pay is so high? It&#x27;s because CEOs have no accountability for raising their pay when investors aren&#x27;t paying attention to what they&#x27;re doing. You want to know why CEOs are taking short-term action to boost stock prices at the expense of long-term viability? It&#x27;s because they care about the short, you care about the long, and you have no voice when you&#x27;re in an index fund. You want to know why CEOs are issuing debt to do stock buybacks? To empire build by paying too much for their competitors? To play accounting games to boost short-term earnings?<p>Index funds are the tail that&#x27;s wagging the dog, and they are going to be a disaster. And unlike derivatives, which can mess with stock prices but largely leave the fundamental structure of the company untouched, the dog that&#x27;s being wagged here is the viability of globally important corporations that we depend on.<p>They were fine when 5% of the market just piggy backed onto the other passive (though attentive) investors. But now passive and inattentive investors are a massive proportion of the market.
评论 #12769512 未加载
评论 #12769680 未加载
评论 #12769681 未加载
评论 #12769576 未加载
评论 #12770111 未加载
nodesocket超过 8 年前
Here is a graph of my personal account which I manage myself vs the S&amp;P 500 index. I am currently beating it with gains on the year of 7.3%, but only thanks to the last couple of strong months. I was deep in the red early on.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;imgur.com&#x2F;a&#x2F;XHNTZ" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;imgur.com&#x2F;a&#x2F;XHNTZ</a>
评论 #12769549 未加载
评论 #12770689 未加载
评论 #12769646 未加载
评论 #12772963 未加载
mark-r超过 8 年前
There&#x27;s an aspect of self-fulfilling prophecy to this. Higher demand leads to higher prices, and as more money flows into indexes the stocks in those indexes are going to rise relative to the rest of the market. Thus their earnings become harder to beat.
评论 #12769075 未加载
评论 #12769073 未加载
hiou超过 8 年前
Index fund tracking has become successful because one of the goals of US Government policy is to maintain that things like the S&amp;P 500 continue to go up over time. If they go down people get voted out of office.<p>So the index funds have the full force of the US Government watching over them. This is why economics is not just some math puzzle but often more about politics and sociology.
评论 #12769710 未加载
kelukelugames超过 8 年前
Can you put in the title what they were right about? Otherwise it&#x27;s a clickbait title.
forinti超过 8 年前
Brazilian banks have been offering these for decades. It&#x27;s astonishing that this could be a novelty in the US.
评论 #12768613 未加载
评论 #12768608 未加载