You are currently viewing our desktop site, do you want to download our app instead?
Moneyweb Android App Moneyweb iOS App Moneyweb Mobile Web App

NEW SENS search and JSE share prices

More about the app

Has passive investing grown too big?

And is it a bubble?
The fund manager who inspired the movie The Big Short thinks index funds are distorting asset prices. Image: Shutterstock

Hedge fund manager Michael Burry is almost a mythical figure. His shorting of the US housing market before the great financial crisis was the inspiration for the Oscar-winning movie The Big Short.

So when he suggests that there is another bubble developing, people pay attention.

This is what he did in an interview with Bloomberg last year, when he argued that index funds, and exchange-traded funds (ETFs) in particular, are distorting asset prices in stock and bond markets. As more money flows into these products, he said, this distortion is only growing bigger, which means that the likely severity of the resulting crash is getting worse.

“Central banks and Basel III have more or less removed price discovery from the credit markets, meaning risk does not have an accurate pricing mechanism in interest rates any more,” Burry said. “And now passive investing has removed price discovery from the equity markets. The simple theses and the models that get people into sectors, factors, indexes, or ETFs and mutual funds mimicking those strategies – these do not require the security-level analysis that is required for true price discovery.”

A closer look

Burry’s argument appears to start from the premise that passive investing has grown too big. However, speaking in Cape Town recently, the head of exchange-traded products at S&P Dow Jones Indices, John Davies, questioned this assumption.

“There are around 8 000 exchange-traded products in existence globally,” Davies explained. “That is a lot. But there are 50 000 mutual funds.

And if you look at the percentage of assets in ETFs compared to the total mutual fund market globally, it’s still only 10%.”

This perspective is important. Last year, Morningstar reported that the value of investments in equity index funds in the US had surpassed the amount of money in active mutual funds for the first time. In total, funds tracking US stock market indices held assets worth $4.271 trillion at the end of August, while active managers were looking after $4.246 trillion.

Source: Morningstar Direct, Bloomberg

This was a significant milestone, but even though $4.271 trillion is unquestionably a lot of money, it is only around 20% of the total value of the New York Stock Exchange. The amount of money in passive investments is therefore still relatively small, even in the market where it has been most widely adopted.

How big can it get?

How much this 20% can really influence the entire market therefore has to be questioned.

Read: Concerns ETFs could amplify the next market crash

“Two years ago at the Berkshire Hathaway investor day, Vanguard founder Jack Bogle was asked how big can passive get, and what the impact would be,” Davies recalled. “He said that passive can get huge, and it would be disastrous. But he went on to say that it could grow to 75% or 80% of the market and it still wouldn’t be a problem. It would actually help price discovery.”

Bogle actually said that if “everybody indexed” there would be “chaos” and “the markets would fail”. In this extreme scenario, Burry’s fears would indeed be realised as there wouldn’t be any active investors left actually deciding what shares should be worth.

However, it’s difficult, if not impossible, to see this actually happening. There are two key reasons for this.

The first is that a rise in passive investing would never shut out all active managers. What it would do, is shut out the most unsuccessful of them. The active investors that are left would therefore be the ones most able to accurately price securities.

As Davies noted:

“If you think about the impact of money moving from active to passive, what is actually happening is that the mediocre active managers will diminish or go out of business, and you get an environment where you have true, high conviction active managers who can deliver true alpha.”

Secondly, the rising influence of passive funds on markets will inevitably create counterbalancing forces. As Vladyslav Sushko and Grant Turner from the Bank for International Settlements noted in a 2018 research paper:

“At some point, greater anomalies in individual security prices would be expected to increase the gains from informed analysis and active trading, and thus spur more active investment strategies.”

Trading day

What is also vital to note is that index funds do not trade in their underlying securities throughout the day. They only buy or sell shares at specific times.

“If you look at when trading occurs for ETFs or passive funds, the majority happens at the daily market close and around rebalancing,” Davies explained. “So I disagree with some of the assumptions that passive investing is creating inefficiencies.”

This is because share prices are constantly moving throughout a trading session. Active investors are constantly influencing where they go. Passive funds, however, generally only have an impact once a day.

“Price discovery in markets is happening throughout the day and ETFs don’t trade throughout the day,” Davies said. “The ETFs themselves might be traded, but that is in the secondary market, not the primary market.”

Please consider contributing as little as R20 in appreciation of our quality independent financial journalism.



Sort by:
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Top voted

You must be signed in to comment.


SA is way behind the curve when it comes to ETF’s.

We dont have options in the local market to short indexes via ETF’s but internationally these inverse Index ETF’s are available. Even geared ones.

So if passive is not just “buy only” I don’t see a train smash happening soon. Maybe the ability to short sell indexes can deflate the bubble. Create a bit of balance in the market?

‘’The Age of Turbulence’’ has arrived – and the prolonged ‘’irrational exuberance’’ of World Stock Markets’’ has been here for a while
– Hence my view that the most important decisions must be taken by ‘’Indexes’’ and the fears that if “everybody indexed” there would be “chaos” and “the markets would fail” could only be viable in the extreme.
– Too many people (especially pensioners) lost billions with passive investments in the likes of Steinhoff and Sasol etc!

here is why the world is stuffed : statistical models emulate what fund managers do. These self-same fund managers are spreadsheet jockey lawyer MBA’s that have by and large never started, grown or managed an actual business other than the toll extracting business we call a fund management firm. All the managers can disappear tomorrow and the economy would not notice.

Value is created and therefore determined by founders and owners, not administrators. Over and under valuations are created by fund managers that mis-price.

You don’t have to invest through a fund manager for a fee for their service….you can do it yourself.

You want services and conveniences….you pay for them.

Agree 100% Johan.

I just think these ETFs and indexes create opportunities for real players in this field.

Ridiculous heading.

Passive investment cannot grow big enough!

Do you think passive should be 100% of the market?

Yes. 100% of the public market and pensions. Speculative investors can do active.

Show me active investments that beat an index over 50 years.

Well, if passive investments (ETF’s/ Index trackers) have grown too large for their own good, then surely it should become even much easier for actively managed funds to outperform the passive investments, right?

Do they?

I don’t always buy the notion that too much passive investments are distorting the market. The same shares gets purchased (in different quantities) whether from ETF’s or from active selection. The old argument for when there’s a buyer (at a given price) there will be a seller… who is correct?

ETF’s tracking various indexes are nothing sinister. There are too many Indexing & ETF’s “themes” (as there are in active funds) to spread the investment sphere, the method of asset-slection will not distort the market. It is the market.

The basics remain…you aim to buy an index/ETF near the bottom-half of the cycle, and sell near the top-half of a cycle…be it from an actively managed share selection, of some choice of ETF. But very few call the timing right, irrespective if active share buy via fund-manager, or picking index-trackers.

Almost like a vehicle: the preferable way to travel is FORWARD (i.e. asset prices going upward)….it’s less relevant whether you’re using a manual gearbox (active man.) or automatic transmission (passive investing). So long you don’t end up selecting the REVERSE gear (or lever) too often…

What DISTORTS the market with hotting up asset prices (overvalued) when a too large portion of overall market moves into a certain asset class or region within a specified time-period, that cannot be sustained by asset intrinsic valuea. Bubbles are created when almost EVERYONE TRIES to be in the same asset (be it US stocks, or Eurobonds, or Real Estate, or whatever) AT THE SAME TIME….the method (active vs passive) that buys such over-bought asset, is less relevant.

Lets use Steinhoff/African Bank as example. If everybody was indexed (SATRIX40) in terms of their investments, there would not have been a price correction, since index funds does not buy based on fundamentals. Despite the scandal their would have been no sellers.

However, it creates opportunities. This is likely to result in large mispricings in small cap stocks where share prices are unlikely to move since the majority of money is chasing Top40 stocks i.e. focusing on share price (market cap) rather than earnings and cash flow. Who cares what the share price does if the company is making money, printing cash and paying dividends? Share price only important when you are a seller.

End of comments.





Follow us:

Search Articles:
Click a Company: