Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Wait, you can have an index fund with value stocks in it. Why wouldn't that address his concern?
Because the point is not maximizing return for investors. The point is people ooh-ing and aah-ing over capitalist geniuses picking stocks and showing that we live in a meritocracy
His point is different than that. It used to be the balance was there were people who hyped growth stocks for their future potential (aka "capital geniuses") and more staid folks who pointed out which stocks were undervalued due to their actual performance on a variety of metrics and more predictable near term performance. Now, because the more conservative position is to just buy an index, but there are still plenty of capitalist geniuses, the market is tilting towards growth stocks. So the idea that whereas in the short term the stock market is a voting machine but in the long term it's a weighing machine has also shifted. This doesn't mean the weighing never comes though, it could come when people decide a whole sector is too overvalued and then it crashes.
I guess I don't get why there isn't just as much opportunity for value to shine as it did before? If the market is index plus geniuses, then aren't the geniuses still overvaluing some stocks and undervaluing other and value can buy the undervalued stocks and make money?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Wait, you can have an index fund with value stocks in it. Why wouldn't that address his concern?
Because the point is not maximizing return for investors. The point is people ooh-ing and aah-ing over capitalist geniuses picking stocks and showing that we live in a meritocracy
His point is different than that. It used to be the balance was there were people who hyped growth stocks for their future potential (aka "capital geniuses") and more staid folks who pointed out which stocks were undervalued due to their actual performance on a variety of metrics and more predictable near term performance. Now, because the more conservative position is to just buy an index, but there are still plenty of capitalist geniuses, the market is tilting towards growth stocks. So the idea that whereas in the short term the stock market is a voting machine but in the long term it's a weighing machine has also shifted. This doesn't mean the weighing never comes though, it could come when people decide a whole sector is too overvalued and then it crashes.
I guess I don't get why there isn't just as much opportunity for value to shine as it did before? If the market is index plus geniuses, then aren't the geniuses still overvaluing some stocks and undervaluing other and value can buy the undervalued stocks and make money?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Wait, you can have an index fund with value stocks in it. Why wouldn't that address his concern?
Because the point is not maximizing return for investors. The point is people ooh-ing and aah-ing over capitalist geniuses picking stocks and showing that we live in a meritocracy
His point is different than that. It used to be the balance was there were people who hyped growth stocks for their future potential (aka "capital geniuses") and more staid folks who pointed out which stocks were undervalued due to their actual performance on a variety of metrics and more predictable near term performance. Now, because the more conservative position is to just buy an index, but there are still plenty of capitalist geniuses, the market is tilting towards growth stocks. So the idea that whereas in the short term the stock market is a voting machine but in the long term it's a weighing machine has also shifted. This doesn't mean the weighing never comes though, it could come when people decide a whole sector is too overvalued and then it crashes.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Wait, you can have an index fund with value stocks in it. Why wouldn't that address his concern?
Because the point is not maximizing return for investors. The point is people ooh-ing and aah-ing over capitalist geniuses picking stocks and showing that we live in a meritocracy
Anonymous wrote:Wait, you can have an index fund with value stocks in it. Why wouldn't that address his concern?
Anonymous wrote:I just read the transcript from the podcast. Very good. Thank you to the OP for posting it.
Anonymous wrote: Value investing has underperformed the general market for more than 10 years. That’s the main reason it is not popular. Yes, index investing has made it harder for value investing to stand out, but that doesn’t overcome the weakness of value investing.
Last month, for the first time, passively managed funds controlled more assets than did their actively managed competitors. (This count includes both traditional mutual funds and exchange-traded funds.) ...