Back to press
Prevous
Next
This is some text inside of a div block.

BUBBLE ECONOMICS: THE ACTIVE VS PASSIVE DEBATE

EuroHedge - https://hfm.global/eurohedge

Bubble economics: the active vs passive debate

Posted By Drew Dickson On September 12, 2019 @ 4:03 pm

‍

Michael Burry’s comparison between passive investment in equity markets and the bubble in the synthetic CDO market back in 2007 (which he famously – thanks to Michael Lewis and Christian Bale – identified) sparked a robust debate this month.

Financial specialists on Twitter, a broadly pro-passive audience to begin with, mostly disagreed. This is for good reason, as passive investing is a lower cost way for retail investors (at least) to gain exposure to rising equity markets over the long term.

But I thought the chastising of Burry was a bit overdone. Burry asked a thought-provoking question, it’s just that “bubble” was the wrong word to use. It was wrong, because there is no bubble in passive investing, but the word was so incendiary that it was difficult to stay objective.

But it’s okay to ask if passive flows are affecting share prices. People have been asking these questions for decades, and the volume of analysis here is only increasing. These are interesting, even confusing, times. Money is pouring into passive vehicles, value hasn’t worked for over a decade and the S&P 500 is up 400% since March 2009.

Burry is simply wondering if the trend toward passive investing is having any impact on the prices of companies that are or are not in these indices. This is a good question – one I have been thinking about since my dissertation on the subject in graduate school, many moons ago.

Even back in 1998, it was reasonable to ask whether, given passive investing was becoming a larger part of the market, its effects were increasing with time. My co-author Craig Dawson and I didn’t reach that conclusion but left open the idea that with more time, datapoints and flows into passive funds, we might.

Now, 21 years later, the overriding question we are all asking is if passive investing is at the point where there are not enough active investors to correct prices. In other words, are we at the point where the passive free-riders are actually making prices?

At least at the broad, market level, I don’t think we are. Indeed, Cliff Asness – specifically on the issue of index investing and the “free-rider” issue – points out that accurate prices in many goods happen without so much impact from the “wisdom of crowds” but instead by expert judgment by just a few people.

But I simultaneously disagree with the view that pricing is always unaffected in the intermediate and long-term by behavioural biases. There are a host of strange behaviours that affect certain subsets of the market (value stocks, quality stocks, momentum stocks, etc).

We do not think that the tail is yet wagging the dog. We do not believe that passive investing is a bubble, nor do we believe that it is to blame for the underperformance of small caps or value, nor even that they deserve credit for strong equity markets in the US.

This is where it gets even more interesting. Ben Hunt of Epsilon Theory found the reaction to Burry’s article revealing. He saw it as rooted in a constantly-reinforced view that everyone knows stocks as an asset class always go up, and that passive vehicles are the cheapest way to get there. And the second-order, Keynesian-esque argument is that everyone knows that everyone knows these things.

He thinks this results in (and creates) the narrative in which we all are really saying “be long”. And given the S&P 500’s decade-long and continuing rise, that mantra is no surprise. Ben highlighted historical periods when the accepted faith – the things that people believed that people believed – was that markets did not go up forever. People operating under that faith actually did very well until things changed. And they did change.

And maybe they will change again? Will the undying love for passive investing will become a little tainted if the markets ever decide not to go up? What if some of this anti-Burry, pro-passive sentiment is a sign of the times, rather than something that we can be certain will always be?

This isn’t an unreasonable perspective, and neither is the view that “passive” investing is not in a bubble. As such, despite the fiery rhetoric from all sides, I don’t think my smart friends on Twitter are in as much disagreement as it appears.

Dickson is founder and portfolio manager of Albert Bridge Capital in London. This is a condensed version of the full article, which can be read here [1].

‍

Article printed from EuroHedge: https://hfm.global/eurohedge

URL to article: https://hfm.global/eurohedge/opinion/bubble-economics-the-active-vspassive-debate/

URLs in this post: [1] here:

https://www.albertbridgecapital.com/drew-views/2019/9/8/everybody-was-kung-fu-fighting

Copyright © 2019 EuroHedge. All rights reserved.

You might Also Like

THIS BULL MARKET ISN'T AS BIG AS YOU THINK

The gap between Wall Street and Main Street has never seemed wider...
Read more

BLENDING BEHAVIOUR & FUNDAMENTALS AT ALBERT BRIDGE CAPITAL

A deep dive on how to blend fundamental research and behavioural finance in taking on the stock market
Read more

INMARSAT BUYOUT FACES FRESH OPPOSITION AS COURT RULING LOOMS

Inmarsat buyout faces fresh opposition as court ruling looms
Read more

BUBBLE ECONOMICS: THE ACTIVE VS PASSIVE DEBATE

Bubble economics the active vs passive debate
Read more
Navigations
HomeTeamDrew's viewsPressContact
About Albert Bridge Capital

Albert Bridge Capital manages concentrated long-only equity portfolios for institutional investors.The hallmark of its Alpha Europe strategy is the application of tenets of behavioural finance to a rigorous, fundamental, process-oriented research process.

Regulatory Disclaimers
Stewardship codePillar three disclosureRTS 28Legal & regulatoryPrivacy policyCookies policy
How to get in Touch
Michelin House
Suite 109, 81 Fulham Road
London, SW3 6RD
info@albertbridgecapital.com
+44 (0) 203 826 0206

Subscribe to Drew's Views

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Albert Bridge Capital LLP is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority of the United Kingdom © Albert Bridge Capital 2021.
Website by SW10media.com
hometeamdrew's viewspressCOntactRegulatory
THIS BULL MARKET ISN'T AS BIG AS YOU THINK
BLENDING BEHAVIOUR & FUNDAMENTALS AT ALBERT BRIDGE CAPITAL
INMARSAT BUYOUT FACES FRESH OPPOSITION AS COURT RULING LOOMS
BUBBLE ECONOMICS: THE ACTIVE VS PASSIVE DEBATE
SHORT SELLERS "SHOULD BE KNIGHTED, NOT SPITED"
FINANCIAL TWITTER LOSES A SOURCE OF HUMILITY AND WISDOM, BUT GOOD VOICES REMAIN
THE FUTILITY OF MARKET TIMING
ALBERT BRIDGE BORDERS ON ‘SUGGESTIVISM’ IN BACKING MICRO FOCUS RECOVERY - PROFILER
ALBERT BRIDGE’S DREW DICKSON AT IRA SOHN
VOLKSWAGEN STOCK IS CHEAP AND HAS LOTS OF HORSEPOWER
THE DAY VOLKSWAGEN BRIEFLY CONQUERED THE WORLD
A CHALLENGE TO THE BIGGEST IDEA IN BEHAVIOURAL FINANCE
ALBERT BRIDGE CAPITAL’S DICKSON DISCUSSES NOBEL PRIZE WINNER RICHARD THALER
ALBERT BRIDGE CAPITAL'S DICKSON INCLUDED IN THE HEDGE FUND JOURNAL TOMORROW'S TITANS 2016
ALBERT BRIDGE HIRES FORMER BAML’S KENNY FOR MARKETING
ALBERT BRIDGE HIRES BAML CAP INTRO HEAD
EX-FORTRESS AND MORGAN STANLEY HEAVYWEIGHT JOINS HEDGE FUND STARTUP
EX-PERELLA WEINBERG MANAGER RAISES $150M FOR STARTUP
FORMER PERELLA WEINBERG PARTNERS EXEC DICKSON LAUNCHING NEW HEDGE FUND
EX-PERELLA WEINBERG PARTNER LAUNCHES ALBERT BRIDGE CAPITAL
BARRONS - FOCUS ON FUNDS, AM FUNDS ROUNDUP
EX-PERELLA WEINBERG PARTNER TO LAUNCH EQUITY HEDGE FUND