3 ms·
Passive investors were not going to make the market more efficient anyway since they are not informative. They carry only one piece of information which is that
by pishpash 9y ago
Passive investors were not going to make the market more efficient anyway since they are not informative. They carry only one piece of information which is that they have some money to invest into the economy and would be okay to take some risk, and they express that well enough through a passive financial product reproducing what the financial industry itself calls the "market returns." They of course do care to make some money; nobody is in it to lose money, so how are they making the market less efficient? It's not that different from saving the money in a bank for the bank to allocate.
Now, if the passive investment flow comes to dominate volume on any given day, then the "marginal" trade becomes a passive, uninformative one; then we have a problem.
- lend000 9y agoThey aren't making the market less efficient, because index funds create value for many people for the reasons you described. The market inefficiency is easily corrected by day traders and market makers. I'm just saying that index funds do not make markets and economies more efficient, as the article claims, so if we had a 99% ownership tied up in index funds scenario, markets would indeed be far less liquid and more volatile.