3 ms·
If you actually believe in passive index investing, this seems like a bad thing. You want lots of little pieces of various companies, especially ones that prote
by cbhl 9y ago
If you actually believe in passive index investing, this seems like a bad thing. You want lots of little pieces of various companies, especially ones that protect from distractions/meddling by activist investors.
- zenlikethat 9y agoWhy go public in the first place if you don't want active investors? I find it highly unlikely investors wanting to get involved in a company's success would be a bad thing more often than not.
- cbhl 9y agoI believe the are rules that often force companies to go public (e.g. the 500 investor rule) even if the CEO wants to retain private ownership.
- MichaelDickens 9y agoIf you believe in passive investing, it might make more sense to buy something like the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index rather than the S&P 500, which has inclusion rules and isn't a true broad-market index. (Although the S&P 500 performs almost exactly the same as a total market index).
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- dingo_bat 9y agoYeah those pesky investors. Giving us money and expecting something in return!
- OscarCunningham 9y agoRight, hopefully there will be passive funds that include companies like Snap that are large parts of the "investable universe" but aren't on an the indices.