4 ms·

Buffett, as an active investor, can outperform the market, while active investors as an aggregate might not. I fail to see any ludicrousness. > Buffett Annual

• gizmo 10y ago
  If active investment were negative-sum in aggregate then society would be better off if there were no active investors at all and everybody would invest in passive index funds instead. Unfortunately you need active investors to keep the market honest, without active investors index funds wouldn't work! Index funds are needed so investment funds don't overcharge their customers, and investment funds are needed to keep the market honest. It makes sense for individuals (or institutions) to invest in index funds, but only up to a point. When too much money is stuck in passive index funds the active investors will easily outperform the market and the smart money will leave the index funds again. The person I was responding to was drawing an analogy to a casino where the money just moves around and the institutions just skim every time money changes hands. That's negative sum. In contrast, society benefits when the stock market gives access to capital to well run companies and takes money away from poorly run companies. So the casino analogy doesn't work. Buffett understands that the stock market as a whole isn't zero sum (or negative sum), and that's true even if all investment firms in aggregate underperform the indexes.
  • tptacek 10y ago
    I think you and your interlocutors are talking past each other. It's true (and fashionable to point out) that active investment is what makes price discovery, and thus the markets themselves, work. But that doesn't make it a good idea to invest in hedge funds or any other active investment vehicles. Just as Buffett describes earlier in the letter w/r/t the insurance business, active investors can compete the returns on effective price discovery down below the returns on passive investing. Maybe over the long term the returns on active investing will simply go to prop traders.
    • gizmo 10y ago
      Perhaps it is fashionable to point that out where you live, but common wisdom I hear is "everybody should just use index funds", without stopping to ask what would happen if everybody actually did. Worldwide equities are 65 trillion or so. Can you have a functioning stock market if 1T of that is actively managed by prop traders and the remaining 64T is in passive index funds? I'm not so sure.
      • tptacek 10y ago
        Now you're talking past me. It does not follow from the fact that active investment is necessary that people should invest with active investors. Again, fierce competition among active investors can --- and probably have --- created conditions where all the returns on active investing will go to (effectively) proprietary traders.
        • gizmo 10y ago
          I don't think I'm talking past you -- your previous point was perfectly clear. You literally cannot have active investments if nobody invests with active investors or actively manages their funds themselves. This is tautological. So somebody has to invest with active investors, but Buffett is arguing it should be somebody else and not you. If 99.99% of all assets are locked up in buy-and-hold passive index funds the prop traders can't do anything when a stock is mispriced because they can only trade with the handful of active investors that remain. With 65 trillion in equities a handful of prop traders can jump high and low all they want but the markets won't budge if nobody is buying or selling. The index managers on the other hand will be able to move markets with a keystroke, because whenever they decide that one stock in the index has to be replaced by another all the index fund money blindly follows.
          • tptacek 10y ago
            Nobody has to invest money in prop shops for them to provide market inputs. There are some huge proprietary trading firms.
  • pcrh 10y ago
    Investing in the stock market is secondary to the actual investment into activities performed by the companies that constitute it. Thus, investments decisions made within such companies are those that promote their growth (or not). In this manner, without insider knowledge into the internal decisions those companies make, and thus the ability to judge the viability of their investments, investing in something other than a stock index is much riskier. But the stock market itself can still grow. The distinction is that investing in "the market" is an arms length investment that occurs well after the good or bad investments that affect the profitability of individual companies have occurred.
  • Retric 10y ago
    Nothing says you need investors to do price discovery.