February 24, 2011

Index Investors are Evil Freeloaders (Or: Why Vanguard Should Pay SAC and Paulson Royalties)

If you’re reading this, there’s a very good chance that you’re ripping me off. You’re not alone, and I’m not alone, either. Index investors are engaged in massive freeloading at the expense of active investors.

In 2009, the top 25 hedge fund managers took home a collective $25.3 billion. What did they do to earn that? They worked ridiculous hours. They took massive risks. They put their investors ahead of friends, family, and social obligations.

Meanwhile, $SPY investors alone saw a 28% gain for the year, with average assets of about $93 billion. They made roughly $27 billion in profits. All that, thanks to a decision they could make with about fifteen seconds of research, zero reputational risk, no major sacrifices, and no change in behavior.

Basically, professional money managers are driving themselves crazy—sometimes literally—in order to create a market efficient enough for lazy people to profit. And the lazy people make more.

Indexing Fuels Bubbles

One key ingredient in bubbles is that they genericize something specific. You can’t have a “housing” bubble until you decide that apartments in Tribeca are fundamentally the same as new subdivisions outside of Vegas, or that a company revolutionizing the auction business is the same as a company revolutionizing the pet food business. (This is is part of why the college bubble is still going strong—it wouldn’t be a bubble if it were the Harvard Bubble, and it wouldn’t have gotten this far if we’d called it the University of Phoenix Criminal Justice Degree Bubble.)

Index investing lets someone blindly allocate a chunk of their assets to some fairly generic collection of companies—some worthwhile, many not. Who determines the exchange rate between the worthies and the worthless? Who decides how many Pets.coms you need to match the potential of one Amazon? Once again, it’s the active investors.

Combine this with information assymmetry, and you’ll get massive capital allocation problems. The generic, bubble-ized companies’ managements know their stock is overvalued. Their instinct is to issue shares (or use them as currency) as long as that persists. That, of course means that more and more of the indexified sector is taken up by the lowest-quality companies. Not just the lowest-quality companies, either: the ones that combine low quality with cynical management willing to exploit the market’s misperceptions.

Index investing, and the instincts behind it, exacerbate the natural tendency towards bubbles. We’d still have localized excessive optimism even if we didn’t have index funds. We just wouldn’t be able to act on it so decisively.

Even Worse: Active Investors Don’t Win

The strongest defense of index fund investing is that active investors don’t win. And that’s largely true: analyst projections don’t have strong predictive value, mutual funds underperform their benchmarks, and even hedge funds’ excess profits are largely absorbed by management fees.

That’s a strong defense of individual investors’ decisions to invest in index funds. But that excess performance is only possible if active managers are trading stocks. At some point, someone has to decide that one company is a buy and another company is a sell—if we all invested solely in index funds, share prices would move in lockstep (disregarding liquidity).

It’s like finding out that avid movie theater attendees have lower disposable incomes than people who use Bittorrent.

Passive investors are free-riding on active investors. Granted, many other investors free-ride on one another—we all get liquidity from the quants, the quants avoid buying overpriced stocks because value investors arbitrage away big value discrepancies, and value investors avoid getting blindsided by macro shifts because macro investors make the appropriate bets.

But index investors don’t contribute to any of that. They’re just the world’s worst trend-chasers, combined with the world’s most counterproductive underwriters. If you’ve invested in index funds, please, please take a flyer on something specific—but only if you’ve thought about it first.

You should subscribe to my feed or follow me on Twitter.

I’m currently the Co-Founder and CEO of a startup providing equity research and M&A due diligence to investors analyzing online businesses.

  • Fredjones

    I was able to read this, which means it is not written in a language that you invented, therefore you are leeching on society. Poo-poo on you.

  • Noactive

    Hedge fund and Wallstreet managers are scum who steal from unsophisticated investors. Index all the way.

  • JJ

    I think you’re analysis is a bit off. Let’s take the housing market analogy you provided. Index investors are people who buy their house and own it indefinitely. End of story. That works for a lot of people, especially those who have jobs that aren’t related to the housing market, people who don’t understand how the housing market works, etc. Not participating in the housing market doesn’t kill the liquidity in the housing market and housing market speculators aren’t angry that everyone who owns a house isn’t also a speculator. Financial assets (generally) work just like houses, they’re assets that people exchange at an agreed upon price. Although the number of participants in the markets may change and their behaviours may change the price level in the market, if all the quants and active investors left the market, it wouldn’t change anything for the people who are happy to sit on their investments and not think about them. You also have to remember that all these index investors didn’t buy their investments in 1965 collectively and are planning on selling them at the same time on some date in the future, these retail investors number in the millions and are constantly buying and selling their shares to suit their needs. Just like the housing market where most people don’t buy and sell their houses everyday, yet enough houses get sold to give the rest of the market participants (and the tax authorities, and anyone else who’s interested) a generally idea of where the market sits. To say that I’m an evil freeloader because the price of my house is determined by how many speculators are buying and selling in my area is really comparing apples and oranges.

  • Foo

    Stick with website marketing please.

  • http://www.facebook.com/sebastian.wittenstein Sebastian Wittenstein

    Your argument is amusing, but I find it simplistic.

    Have you considered that active investors may not add much if any value to the market acting alone? Buying and selling and speculating on the slightest changes in the world; would that not introduce chaos into the marketplace, destabilizing it? On its own, active management will create a highly chaotic market, which will fluctuate wildly and regularly boom and bust. This is a historical fact and I can point you to specific examples if you want.

    Index funds on the other hand act as a stabilizing agent, simply filling the market with money that sits in place, betting that the market in general, or a sub market in general, will rise. On its own index funds create a frozen economy, with little or no movement. This is also a historical fact and I can point you to specific examples if you want.

    A truly healthy economy will have a mix of the two, enough indexed funds to keep the market stable, but enough active investing to keep the market flexible enough to adapt to change and invest in new opportunity.

    I would recommend that before you make such amusing accusations of the “evils” of indexing you do some research into historical economic trends and their causes, it might give you a useful perspective and help your active trading. After all, those who do not learn from history are likely to repeat the mistakes of the past.

  • Jackmanbob

    Wow. Ok…. you compare the top 25 hedge-fund managers and compare them to ALL $SPY investors… cuz that makes sense!

  • http://www.bogleheads.org Alex Frakt

    I see you have uncovered our evil plan. Well, we may be forced to retreat to our island lair for now. But you have not seen the last of us! Bwah hah hah hah.

    - indexer

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Benjamin-Dean/302518 Benjamin Dean

    Even if I agreed with the points of your argument, which I think is flawed on a few levels (Mr. Wittenstein’s take is quite lucid, for example), your attempt to make a moral case for this is patently absurd. Should I pay more for a worse product because a money manager really tried hard? Should the medal go to the runner who came in first, or to the runner who gave the most effort?

    The entire moral premise of the market is that individual greed produces collective good. I don’t personally adhere to this, but to argue that one class of investors is getting a free ride from some hardworking other class is frankly a little embarrassing. Do teachers receive a cut of the profits their pupils make with their education? Do textbook authors? How about the farmer who produced the calories I was using when I my wages? There is no need to fear a catastrophe, as the index strategy would be abandoned as soon as it failed to yield profits, which we can see would happen if it were the only strategy. Morally, it’s identical to any other means of buying money in the future in exchange for a little less money now.

  • no really, learn math

    In 2009, the top 25 hedge fund managers took home a collective $25.3 billion. What did they do to earn that? They worked ridiculous hours. They took massive risks. They put their investors ahead of friends, family, and social obligations.

    Meanwhile, $SPY investors alone saw a 28% gain for the year, with average assets of about $93 billion. They made roughly $27 billion in profits. All that, thanks to a decision they could make with about fifteen seconds of research, zero reputational risk, no major sacrifices, and no change in behavior.

    25 people mean-averaged ~$1 billion each, whereas an unknown quantity of investors (but doubtlessly a few orders-of-magnitude more than 25) *together* pulled-in $27 billion?

    And then you claim that those index investors “made more” money than the hedge fund managers? Um, no.

    Try your argument again when you learn basic arithmetic. (Demo: assume 1 million people invest equally in $SPY, which earns $27b. How much does each person earn? Answer: $27,000 — which, since your arithmetic sucks, is much, much less than $1 billion.

    Combine this with information assymmetry

    Also, learn spelling, or at least how to use a spellchecker (or at least use a browser, like Chrome or Firefox, which points-out spelling mistakes — as my Chrome instance is doing with your spelling). The word is correctly spelled “asymmetry” (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define:+asymmetry).

  • Anonymous

    You should read, “A Random Walk Down Wall Street,” written by Burton Malkiel.

  • http://www.byrnehobart.com/blog/what-stock-option-pricing-models-tell-you-about-courting-controversy/ What Stock Option Pricing Models Tell You about Courting Controversy | Byrne’s Blog

    [...] Building a professional reputation: I got a few dozen pieces of hate mail after my over-the-top attack on index funds. But I’ve also gotten a few notes from people who enjoyed the piece—who wouldn’t [...]

  • Dan Sadler

    Your article was absolutely brilliant! These other commenters don’t realize that under the hood you were, in an entertaining tongue-in-cheek style, making an argument FOR passive investing. (You were, weren’t you?) Again, absolutely brilliant!

  • Stephen Reed

    Sorry for ripping you off. Active investors believe that their own analysis gives them a trading advantage. Or active trading takes place because the trades are forced – e.g. estate liquidation, insider trading.

    Portfolio theory indicates that the best combination of risk and return is accomplished by periodically re-balancing asset categories, each of which is indexed.

    Capitalism works because each of us does what is most profitable within the confines of law and morality.

  • Stchamb

    Index funds are a betrayal of the “Social Contract’s” requirement that capital be allocated and monitored with intelligence, not ignorance of the uses to which it is put.

    Unfortunately, the world has come to believe that financial laziness shall be rewarded. Why should one read financial reports, 10-Ks, et al that government requires $billions to be spent on producing, when all you have to do is buy a bit of everything, without discretion?

    And, what is the incentive for fund managers to engage in corporate governance? — there’s no money in it.

  • Anonymous

    Someone’s sad that they didn’t make money.  A rational person would look at their investment history and say, “I could have made more money in an index fund” and then invest in an index fund.  You seem to just go online and say people who make money logically are freeloaders.  This quote by Einstein is way over used but it seems to fit your reasoning, “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”