3 ms·
The GP isn't disagreeing with you. They just said in the limit that all investment couldn't be passive. There is probably some equilibrium value between active/
by infinite8s 6y ago
The GP isn't disagreeing with you. They just said in the limit that all investment couldn't be passive. There is probably some equilibrium value between active/passive investment.
- throw0101a 6y agoYes, and what the article I posted is saying is that even if all investment was passive at some point, people would would jump from passive-to-active if/when pricing irregularities were noticed. The concern that passive/index investing will ruin The Market is just not something we need to worry about. Jack Bogle made the claim that even if 90% of the market went passive, the remaining 10% would probably be enough to keep things going: * https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/02/12/a-warning-from-the-late-john-bogle/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/02/12/a-... * https://www.ft.com/content/4594f554-ba1a-11e7-9bfb-4a9c83ffa852 https://www.ft.com/content/4594f554-ba1a-11e7-9bfb-4a9c83ffa... I'm less worried about the issue of market and price efficiencies, and more about shareholder votes and company management decisions. How do passive, potentially 'non-opinionated' index funds vote on various measures?