3 ms·
It doesn't seem silly at all. I agree with Michael Burry; I think passive investing is a bubble -- by definition. If you spent $10 million to make a cafe in y
by david927 7y ago
It doesn't seem silly at all. I agree with Michael Burry; I think passive investing is a bubble -- by definition. If you spent $10 million to make a cafe in your small hometown, you would never get that money back for the obvious reason that you could simply never sell that much coffee. The fundamentals aren't there.
So if you invest in "all coffee shops" or "all shops in my hometown", you're not looking at fundamentals, you're investing to invest. And, by definition, (assuming all shops are priced correctly) you're artificially inflating.
If someone invests across a group of stocks, it's because "the market always goes up over time." And if enough people believe that then it can be true for a very, very long period. But eventually it becomes your $10 million coffee shop. It's a bubble. And even a bubble that lasts decades will eventually pop.
- 8ytecoder 7y agoThere are always active investors who could take advantage of this valuation mismatch and bet for/against specific companies that they think are undervalued/overvalued and make money. Eventually this valuation mismatch would show up in their P/L statement and balance sheet. Passive investing freeloads on active investors - in a sense. That's all it is and I for one think it's great.
- gdubs 7y agoInvesting in a whole sector isn’t any less of an investment. You still have to believe in coffee as something that will return in the long time. You’re just trading risk for softer returns than if you were to take a gamble on one specific shop.