Inwestowanie 2022

[memento1984]

2 godziny temu, RappaR napisał(a):

4 godziny temu, barcalover napisał(a):

Kto obiecuje zysk? Czy ja w całej naszej dyskusji obiecałem zysk przykładowo? Nie ma obietnicy zysku, bo nie ma pewności co do wzrostu wartości Bitcoina.

 

4 godziny temu, barcalover napisał(a):

dobry do oszczędzania na emeryturę lub żeby mieć co dać dzieciom.

xD

Zdecentralizowany system obietnic!

[RappaR]

OPINION: PASSIVE INVESTING IS ACCIDENTALLY KILLING CAPITALISM

The market isn’t being priced by analysts anymore, it’s being priced by payroll software.

Capitalism depends on a simple mechanism. Capital flows toward the best ideas, the strongest operators, and the companies that can deliver the highest return on invested capital. Markets work when millions of independent decisions push capital toward opportunity and pull it away from underperformance. That is the foundation of price discovery.

Passive investing disrupts that foundation. It doesn’t evaluate. It doesn’t discriminate. It doesn’t ask questions. It simply buys whatever the index tells it to buy, in the exact proportion the index demands. At a small scale, this isn’t dangerous. At a multi-trillion-dollar scale, it becomes a slow, mechanical takeover of the entire market.

The problem isn’t that passive investing exists. The problem is that it has grown so dominant that it is beginning to override the very mechanism capitalism needs to function.

HOW PASSIVE FLOWS BECAME A MARKET-SHAPING FORCE

Most investors don’t understand the scale of these flows. Every two weeks, millions of paychecks trigger automated 401(k) contributions. Employers match a portion. Target-date funds rebalance. Index funds purchase whatever the benchmark requires, immediately and without hesitation.

None of this involves analysis. None of it requires a view. It is entirely flow-driven. And because most 401(k) plans default into broad market index funds, almost every new dollar entering the system flows directly into the largest companies in the market.

This creates a structural advantage for incumbents that no level of innovation can overcome. A mid-cap company can triple earnings and still get ignored, because passive flows simply aren’t programmed to care. A mega cap can miss expectations, slow growth, and face regulatory scrutiny, yet passive flows continue to buy it because the index weighting demands it.

What was originally designed as a low-cost diversification vehicle has quietly become the gravitational center of the entire market.

THE LOOP THAT REWARDS SIZE OVER PERFORMANCE

When index funds buy the largest companies, those companies grow in market cap. As they grow in market cap, they represent a larger percentage of the index. And because they represent a larger percentage of the index, index funds must buy even more of them.

This is a feedback loop. It rewards size for the sake of size.

If a company is already big, it gets more of every new passive dollar. If it is already dominant, passive flows amplify the dominance. If it is already widely owned, the system forces even more ownership.

This loop is not tied to fundamentals. It is tied purely to weightings. The market becomes backward-looking, not forward-looking. It rewards the past instead of evaluating the future.

An economy built on backward-looking capital allocation cannot sustain long-term innovation.

WHY THIS THREATENS THE COMPETITIVE FABRIC OF THE MARKET

Capitalism thrives on disruption. New entrants push incumbents to innovate. Underdogs force leaders to stay sharp. Investors take risks on ideas that challenge the status quo. Passive investing, scaled to today’s levels, tilts the entire playing field.

Startups struggle to attract capital because fewer active managers are searching for new opportunities. Mid-cap firms are overlooked because passive flows crowd into mega caps by default. Public markets become top-heavy as capital concentrates among a shrinking number of companies.

This creates an oligopolistic market structure that forms accidentally.

Companies no longer compete for investor attention. Investors no longer pressure management to improve capital allocation. Boards face less accountability. Mediocrity becomes survivable as long as the company remains large.

This is the exact environment capitalism was designed to prevent.

THE HIDDEN RISK INSIDE “DIVERSIFICATION”

Most passive investors believe they are diversified. They hold an index fund with hundreds of companies. But the weightings tell a different story.

A portfolio with 500 companies is meaningless if the top 10 determine most of the performance. That is the modern S&P 500.

This creates hidden fragility. When everything depends on a handful of mega caps, any disruption to those companies becomes systemic. Regulation, geopolitical shocks, AI missteps, product failures, leadership changes, supply chain bottlenecks — anything that materially affects the top of the index affects everyone.

This isn’t diversification. It is disguised concentration.

Most people don’t notice because the system has worked for a long time. But systems built on concentration always look stable until the moment they don’t.

HOW PASSIVE FLOWS DISTORT PRICE DISCOVERY

Price discovery is the market’s way of determining what a company is worth based on future expectations. It requires buyers and sellers who evaluate information and come to different conclusions.

Passive investing interrupts this by creating forced buyers. When money flows into an index fund, the fund must buy the index in proportion to its weights. It doesn’t matter if valuations are cheap or expensive. It doesn’t matter if growth is accelerating or decelerating. It doesn’t matter if the business is improving or declining.

All that matters is that the index says: buy.

This shifts asset pricing away from analysis and toward liquidity. Markets stop being mechanisms of judgment and become mechanisms of flow. As a result, valuations drift from reality, not because investors are irrational, but because they are mechanical.

This is how bubbles form—not from greed, but from automation.

THE FRAGILITY THAT EMERGES WHEN FLOWS ARE EVERYTHING

As long as flows continue, the system holds. But what happens when flows weaken? An economic slowdown, rising unemployment, corporate layoffs, recessionary pressure, or simply aging demographics can reduce contribution levels.

When passive flows shrink, sellers suddenly matter again. Without forced buyers, valuations must be justified on fundamentals. Many won’t be.

Because passive flows built the price, the absence of flows causes the unwind.

Unwinds driven by liquidity, not fundamentals, are historically violent. They reprice asset classes quickly because the buyers who once absorbed all selling pressure are no longer present.

This is the core systemic risk passive investors don’t see coming.

WHERE THE OPPORTUNITY EXISTS FOR OPERATORS WHO UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM

Understanding the distortion is not the same as fearing it. During periods of concentrated bubbles, enormous opportunities exist outside the bubble.

Undervalued sectors with real earnings power. Mid-cap companies growing faster than the market appreciates. Industries ignored by passive flows despite structural demand. Innovation happening in corners of the economy that index funds overlook.

When capital crowds into the same top-heavy structure, returns accumulate in the places everyone else ignores.

This requires discipline. It requires independent thinking. And it requires understanding that safety in crowds is an illusion.

FINAL TAKE

Passive investing is not the villain. But scale is. At trillions of dollars, passive flows distort markets, suppress competition, and reward incumbents at the expense of innovation. A market where no one is evaluating businesses is not capitalism. It is a mechanical system pretending to be one.

Capitalism cannot survive if participants stop making choices. And passive investing, unintentionally but powerfully, has built a system where choices no longer matter.

[memento1984]

15 godzin temu, RappaR napisał(a):

OPINION: PASSIVE INVESTING IS ACCIDENTALLY KILLING CAPITALISM

The market isn’t being priced by analysts anymore, it’s being priced by payroll software.

Capitalism depends on a simple mechanism. Capital flows toward the best ideas, the strongest operators, and the companies that can deliver the highest return on invested capital. Markets work when millions of independent decisions push capital toward opportunity and pull it away from underperformance. That is the foundation of price discovery.

Passive investing disrupts that foundation. It doesn’t evaluate. It doesn’t discriminate. It doesn’t ask questions. It simply buys whatever the index tells it to buy, in the exact proportion the index demands. At a small scale, this isn’t dangerous. At a multi-trillion-dollar scale, it becomes a slow, mechanical takeover of the entire market.

The problem isn’t that passive investing exists. The problem is that it has grown so dominant that it is beginning to override the very mechanism capitalism needs to function.

HOW PASSIVE FLOWS BECAME A MARKET-SHAPING FORCE

Most investors don’t understand the scale of these flows. Every two weeks, millions of paychecks trigger automated 401(k) contributions. Employers match a portion. Target-date funds rebalance. Index funds purchase whatever the benchmark requires, immediately and without hesitation.

None of this involves analysis. None of it requires a view. It is entirely flow-driven. And because most 401(k) plans default into broad market index funds, almost every new dollar entering the system flows directly into the largest companies in the market.

This creates a structural advantage for incumbents that no level of innovation can overcome. A mid-cap company can triple earnings and still get ignored, because passive flows simply aren’t programmed to care. A mega cap can miss expectations, slow growth, and face regulatory scrutiny, yet passive flows continue to buy it because the index weighting demands it.

What was originally designed as a low-cost diversification vehicle has quietly become the gravitational center of the entire market.

THE LOOP THAT REWARDS SIZE OVER PERFORMANCE

When index funds buy the largest companies, those companies grow in market cap. As they grow in market cap, they represent a larger percentage of the index. And because they represent a larger percentage of the index, index funds must buy even more of them.

This is a feedback loop. It rewards size for the sake of size.

If a company is already big, it gets more of every new passive dollar. If it is already dominant, passive flows amplify the dominance. If it is already widely owned, the system forces even more ownership.

This loop is not tied to fundamentals. It is tied purely to weightings. The market becomes backward-looking, not forward-looking. It rewards the past instead of evaluating the future.

An economy built on backward-looking capital allocation cannot sustain long-term innovation.

WHY THIS THREATENS THE COMPETITIVE FABRIC OF THE MARKET

Capitalism thrives on disruption. New entrants push incumbents to innovate. Underdogs force leaders to stay sharp. Investors take risks on ideas that challenge the status quo. Passive investing, scaled to today’s levels, tilts the entire playing field.

Startups struggle to attract capital because fewer active managers are searching for new opportunities. Mid-cap firms are overlooked because passive flows crowd into mega caps by default. Public markets become top-heavy as capital concentrates among a shrinking number of companies.

This creates an oligopolistic market structure that forms accidentally.

Companies no longer compete for investor attention. Investors no longer pressure management to improve capital allocation. Boards face less accountability. Mediocrity becomes survivable as long as the company remains large.

This is the exact environment capitalism was designed to prevent.

THE HIDDEN RISK INSIDE “DIVERSIFICATION”

Most passive investors believe they are diversified. They hold an index fund with hundreds of companies. But the weightings tell a different story.

A portfolio with 500 companies is meaningless if the top 10 determine most of the performance. That is the modern S&P 500.

This creates hidden fragility. When everything depends on a handful of mega caps, any disruption to those companies becomes systemic. Regulation, geopolitical shocks, AI missteps, product failures, leadership changes, supply chain bottlenecks — anything that materially affects the top of the index affects everyone.

This isn’t diversification. It is disguised concentration.

Most people don’t notice because the system has worked for a long time. But systems built on concentration always look stable until the moment they don’t.

HOW PASSIVE FLOWS DISTORT PRICE DISCOVERY

Price discovery is the market’s way of determining what a company is worth based on future expectations. It requires buyers and sellers who evaluate information and come to different conclusions.

Passive investing interrupts this by creating forced buyers. When money flows into an index fund, the fund must buy the index in proportion to its weights. It doesn’t matter if valuations are cheap or expensive. It doesn’t matter if growth is accelerating or decelerating. It doesn’t matter if the business is improving or declining.

All that matters is that the index says: buy.

This shifts asset pricing away from analysis and toward liquidity. Markets stop being mechanisms of judgment and become mechanisms of flow. As a result, valuations drift from reality, not because investors are irrational, but because they are mechanical.

This is how bubbles form—not from greed, but from automation.

THE FRAGILITY THAT EMERGES WHEN FLOWS ARE EVERYTHING

As long as flows continue, the system holds. But what happens when flows weaken? An economic slowdown, rising unemployment, corporate layoffs, recessionary pressure, or simply aging demographics can reduce contribution levels.

When passive flows shrink, sellers suddenly matter again. Without forced buyers, valuations must be justified on fundamentals. Many won’t be.

Because passive flows built the price, the absence of flows causes the unwind.

Unwinds driven by liquidity, not fundamentals, are historically violent. They reprice asset classes quickly because the buyers who once absorbed all selling pressure are no longer present.

This is the core systemic risk passive investors don’t see coming.

WHERE THE OPPORTUNITY EXISTS FOR OPERATORS WHO UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM

Understanding the distortion is not the same as fearing it. During periods of concentrated bubbles, enormous opportunities exist outside the bubble.

Undervalued sectors with real earnings power. Mid-cap companies growing faster than the market appreciates. Industries ignored by passive flows despite structural demand. Innovation happening in corners of the economy that index funds overlook.

When capital crowds into the same top-heavy structure, returns accumulate in the places everyone else ignores.

This requires discipline. It requires independent thinking. And it requires understanding that safety in crowds is an illusion.

FINAL TAKE

Passive investing is not the villain. But scale is. At trillions of dollars, passive flows distort markets, suppress competition, and reward incumbents at the expense of innovation. A market where no one is evaluating businesses is not capitalism. It is a mechanical system pretending to be one.

Capitalism cannot survive if participants stop making choices. And passive investing, unintentionally but powerfully, has built a system where choices no longer matter.

Wszystko fajnie, tylko gdzie sa cyfry???

caly US stock market to ~$70T.

roczne kontrybucje via 401k na stock market ~0.5T.

no to jesli chodzi o ogolna teze, moze to i fakt ze sa to slabo przemyslane inwestycje - ale mowimy o <1% skali….aka “glupki” pompuj’o SP493 ~1% (SP493 $45T?)

Edytowane 15 godzin temu przez memento1984

[RappaR]

2 godziny temu, memento1984 napisał(a):

Wszystko fajnie, tylko gdzie sa cyfry???

caly US stock market to ~$70T.

roczne kontrybucje via 401k na stock market ~0.5T.

no to jesli chodzi o ogolna teze, moze to i fakt ze sa to slabo przemyslane inwestycje - ale mowimy o <1% skali….aka “glupki” pompuj’o SP493 ~1% (SP493 $45T?)

A jaki procent stock marker stanowi całość 401k? 

[memento1984]

11 godzin temu, RappaR napisał(a):

A jaki procent stock marker stanowi całość 401k? 

calosc 401k jest akumulowana przez dziesiatki lat. to jest okolo $7T.

w przytoczonym przez Ciebie fragmencie jest utyskiwanie ze jakoby to coroczne kontrybucje 401k powodowaly "tepy" wzrost przez "stupid money" - a to sa jakies grosze ktore naplywaja

*nie wszystkie srodki w 401k siedza w akcjach, sa tez bonds w duzym %