英语
双语
汉语

交易所交易基金和指数基金是否在助长投资泡沫?

Are ETFs and Index Funds Fueling an Investment Bubble?
交易所交易基金和指数基金是否在助长投资泡沫?
1953字
2019-10-13 10:36
98阅读
火星译客

The tidal wave of money pouring into index funds and ETFs has always been a concern to the asset management industry. Sporting rock bottom fees and yielding often superior returns, these fund vehicles have become something of an existential threat to asset managers.

大量资金涌入指数基金和ETF,一直是资产管理业的一个担忧。基金收取极低的费用而又具有较高的回报率,已成为资产管理公司的生存威胁。

Now those concerns are morphing from career risk to market risk. Michael Burry, the hedge fund manager who became famous from the Michael Lewis book The Big Short (and was later played by Christian Bale in the movie version), recently compared index funds to the toxic CDOs he made so much money shorting when the real estate bubble blew up. Burry claims the flows into index funds are distorting stock and bond markets, and when those flows reverse "it will be ugly."

如今,这些担忧正从职业风险转变为市场风险。迈克尔•伯里(Michael Burry)是一位对冲基金经理,因迈克尔•刘易斯(Michael Lewis)的著作《大空头》(the Big Short)而成名(后来克里斯蒂安•贝尔(Christian Bale)在电影版中饰演他)。Burry称,流入指数基金的资金正在扭曲股票和债券市场,当这些资金逆转时,情况将非常糟糕。

As long ago as 1991, legendary hedge fund manager Seth Klarman dismissed indexing as just another Wall Street fad. "When it passes," he said, "the prices of securities included in popular indexes will almost certainly decline relative to those that have been excluded. When the market trend reverses, matching the market will not seem so attractive. The selling will then adversely affect the performance of the indexers and further exacerbate the rush for the exits."

早在1991年,富有传奇色彩的对冲基金经理赛斯•卡拉曼(Seth Klarman)就认为指数只不过是另一种华尔街风尚。他说,“当这种风尚过去时,”“与那些被排除在外的证券相比,流行指数中的证券价格几乎肯定会有所下降。当市场趋势逆转时,与市场匹配这件事似乎就不那么有吸引力了。抛售将对指数投资者的业绩产生负面影响,并进一步加剧退市热潮。”

So these comparisons are nothing new from big-name traders. Still, individual investors ought to pay close attention when they read headlines about famous investors calling for a crash coming—especially when it involves funds so many people are now invested in. But the concerns about a bubble in passive investing are overblown. Here's why:

所以这些比较对于知名交易者来说并不新鲜。尽管如此,当个人投资者读到著名投资者呼吁崩盘的头条新闻时,他们还是应该密切,尤其是当它涉及现在如此多的人投资的基金时更该如此。但是对被动投资泡沫的担忧被夸大了。原因如下:

No rip-off fees, no problem

若非故意抬价,那就没问题

It’s odd that some people think it’s somehow a bad thing investors are shifting money into funds that:

奇怪的是,有些人认为这在某种程度上是一件坏事,投资者将资金转移到基金:

  • save them money in fees
  • are more tax-efficient
  • have lower turnover and trading costs
  • beat the majority of actively managed funds over the long-term
  • are simpler and easier to understand than most investment strategies
  • 节省他们的花费
  • 更节税
  • 营业额和交易成本较低
  • 在长期内击败大多数积极管理型的基金
  • 比大多数投资策略更简单、更容易理解

Wouldn’t it be more worrisome if investors were piling into the opposite scenario—into funds with high fees that are tax inefficient and routinely underperform simple market averages over time?

如果投资者蜂拥而入高收费基金,这种相反的设想不是会更令人担忧吗?他们会被那些高收费、税收效率低、长期表现通常低于简单市场平均水平的基金所吸引而争相涌入吗?

The tail is not wagging the dog 

江山易改,本性难移

There's a lot of fuss around mutual funds and ETFs. But, truth be told, ownership of the stock market goes far beyond these two vehicles. Vanguard founder John Bogle provided a breakdown on index ownership in his latest book:

人们对于共同基金和交易所交易基金太过大惊小怪。但是,说实话,股票市场的所有权远不止这两种投资工具。先锋集团创始人约翰·博格尔在在其最新著作里写了份关于指数所有权的细目列表.

Yes, U.S. index funds have grown to huge size, with their holdings of U.S. stocks doubling from 3.3% of their total market value in 2002, to 6.8% in 2009, and then doubling again to an estimated 14% in 2018. Other mutual funds now hold an estimated 20% of corporate shares, bringing the mutual fund total to almost 35%, the nation’s most dominant single holder of common stocks.

没错,美国指数基金的规模已经非常庞大,它们持有的美国股票占其总市值的比例从2002年的3.3%增至2009年的6.8%,并在2018年再次翻番,达到约14%。其他共同基金目前持有约20%的公司股份,同时共同基金总数达到近35%,是美国最主要的普通股单一持有者。

So, index funds represent less than 15% of share ownership in public companies. And, according to former Vanguard CEO Bill McNabb, indexing in stocks and bonds globally represents less than 5% of global assets.

因此,指数基金在上市公司的持股比例不到15%。此外,据先锋集团(Vanguard)前首席执行长麦克纳布(Bill McNabb)说,全球股票和债券指数在全球资产中所占比例不到5%。

Given that, it's not at all provocative to wonder: Why aren’t people more worried about active managers then? Surely, they're just as likely—if not more—to torpedo the markets. No?

考虑到这一点,那么想知道(不带任何煽动性地):为什么人们那时不会更担心主动管理型基金经理人呢?若非更大的可能性,他们也一样有可能破坏市场。不是吗?

Vanguard and iShares have experienced massive growth over the past two decades, seeing trillions of dollars worth of inflows. But this doesn’t mean indexing is a brand new phenomenon. It’s just being packaged in a cheaper wrapper now.

安硕(iShares)和领航(Vanguard)在过去20年经历了巨大的增长,见证了价值数万亿美元的资金流入。但这并不意味着指数化投资是一个全新的现象,现在只是经过包装给人一种“更便宜”表象。

Professional money managers have been closely tracking their benchmarks for decades now. The upshot? These index funds and ETFs are quickly becoming benchmarks of their own for active fund managers. Furthermore, very few actively managed funds deviate much from those benchmarks because being different eventually leads to under-performance. And that's what gets you fired in the asset management business.

几十年来,专业的基金经理一直在紧密跟踪基金基准的走向。结果如何呢?,这些指数基金和交易所交易基金正迅速成为经纪人主动管理基金所遵从的基准。此外,很少有主动式管理基金与这些基准相差甚远,因为最终这种差异会导致绩效不佳。这就是你在资产管理业务中被解雇的原因。

Career risk may be one of the greatest market inefficiencies, one people seldom talk about. And because career risk is an enduring reality, closet indexing will be with us for some time.

职业上的冒险可能是人们很少谈及的效率最低的市场之一。因为职业风险是长期真实存在的,封闭式指数化投资将伴随我们一段时间。

Pensions and other large institutional investors add to the phenomenon. They have been creating their own index funds in-house for years. We’re just seeing a shift from the institutional practice of closet-indexing to a brimming marketplace for ETFs and other index funds as investors have wisened up.

养老基金和其他大型机构投资者加剧了封闭式指数化投资这一现象。多年来,投资者们一直从内部构建自己的指数基金组合。因为投资者已经变聪明了,我们只看到了从封闭式指数化投资的制度实践,到交易所交易基金以及其他指数型基金市场趋于饱和的转变。

Isn’t it a good thing investors are shifting away from expensive closet index funds?

投资者远离昂贵的封闭式指数基金难道不是件好事吗?

Active funds literally own the market

较活跃的基金实际上占有这个市场

When you buy an index fund of the total stock market, you are literally buying the stock market in proportion to the shares held by all active investors. If you sum up the collective holdings of active managers, what you essentially get is a market-cap-weighted index. Index fund investors are simply buying what the active investors have laid out for them.

当你购买整个股票市场的指数基金时,你实际上是按照所有积极投资者所持股票的比例购买股票市场。如果你把主动管理型基金经理人的集体持股加起来,基本上计算出的是市值加权指数。指数型基金投资者购买的只是积极投资者为我们安排好的东西。

Plus, we have to remember that not every cent flowing into index funds is going directly to the S&P 500 or a total market fund. Most of the money is going there but there are also index funds for small caps, mid caps, value, growth, sectors, themes, and everything in-between.

另外,我们必须记住,并非投资指数基金的每一分钱都直接流入了标准普尔500指数(S&P 500)或股指基金。大部分资金都流向了那里,但也有针对小盘股、中盘股、价值型股票、成长型股票、板块股、主题股和介于两者之间的所有股票的指数基金这样的例外。

Many of the worries about indexing really boil down to career risk in the asset management space. By taking themselves out of the game through the direct purchase of index funds, there are now fewer suckers at the poker table for the pros to take advantage of.

许多关于指数化投资的担忧实际上可以归结为资产管理领域的职业风险。通过直接购买并转型成指数基金,他们退出了这场游戏,现在在“赌桌”上很少有股市行家可操纵的“傻瓜”了。

Isn’t it a good thing then that most small investors have decided not to bother competing with the professional active managers who, it turns out, largely trade with one another?

那么,大多数小投资者已经决定不再与那些原来基本上相互交易的主动管理型基金专业经理人竞争,这难道不是一件好事吗?

Price discovery is a cop-out

价格发现是在逃避问题

Don't feel sorry for the active management community. It will never completely go out of business. It’s far too lucrative and tempting for type-A personalities to prove themselves.

不要为主动型基金管理领域感到遗憾。它永远不会完全退出股市。这对A型人格的人来说个中利润高得诱人以至于无法证明他们自己。

But people worry that as index funds continue to gain market share, the price-discovery mechanism could become fragile. This is nonsense. There’s plenty of price-discovery going on in the markets. In fact, you could probably make the case there’s too much of it these days.

但人们担心,随着指数基金的市场份额持续得到提升,价格发现机制可能会变得脆弱。这是无稽之谈。很多市场都拥有价格发现这项功能。事实上,你可能认为,现在价格发现在商品市场上太常见了。

Fifty years ago or so, for example, the entire trading volume of listed stocks on the New York Stock Exchange was 3 million shares. Today, Apple has an average trading volume of roughly 26 million shares a day. Facebook turns over more than 16 million shares a day, on average. The biggest stock market ETF (SPY) averages nearly 70 million trades a day.

例如,大约50年前,纽约证券交易所上市股票的总交易量是300万股。如今,苹果公司的平均日交易量约为2,600万股。Facebook平均每天的分享量超过1600万次。最大的股票市场---交易所交易基金(SPY)平均每天会进行近7000万笔交易。

Active managers will always set the prices, no matter how many there are. Charley Ellis wrote in his book, The Index Revolutionthat indexing accounts for less than 5% of trading, with the remaining 95% or so done by active investors. This will always be the case, no matter the amount of money flowing into index funds.

不论购买基金的数量有多少,主动管理型基金经理人总会对基金自行定价。埃利斯(Charley Ellis)在他的著作《指数革命》(The Index Revolution)中写道,指数化投资的交易量只占不到5%,其余的95%左右是由积极投资者完成的。无论流入指数基金的资金有多少,情况总是如此。

Here’s the NYSE volume by year:

下图是纽交所的年交易量:

Mind you, I’m not complaining about the increase in volume. This is a good thing because it lowers trading costs and decreases bid/ask spreads.

请注意,我不是在抱怨纽交所交易量的增加。这是一件好事,因为它同时降低了交易成本和买卖价差。

But what’s a more worrisome trend for individual investors—people who have decided to trade less, or people who have decided to trade more?

但对与决定减少或增加交易量的个人投资者来说,更令人担忧的趋势是什么呢?

Yes, index funds are free-riders, but so what? 

是的,购买指数基金犹如搭便车,但那又怎样?

Cliff Asness wrote a wonderful piece for Bloomberg a few years ago about the idea of index investors being free riders:

几年前,克里夫·阿斯尼斯(Cliff Asness)曾为彭博社(Bloomberg)写过一篇精彩的文章,讲述了指数投资者搭便车的想法:

The use of price signals by those who played no role in setting them may be capitalism’s most important feature. That most of us and most of our dollars don’t have to pick stocks, or to price air conditioners, is a great benefit and taking advantage of it makes us honest smart capitalists, not commissars.”

那些没有参与设定价格的人会利用价格信号的引导,这可能是资本主义最重要的特征。我们大多数人、我们大部分的美钞不必选股,也不必为空调定价,这是一个巨大的好处,利用这一点使我们成为了诚实、聪明的资本家,而不是人民委员。”

Yes, index investors are free riders, but this is the way most markets work. We don’t go to the grocery store to bid on prices of oranges against one another to set an equilibrium. The market does that for us.

是的,指数基金投资者是搭便车的人,但这是大多数市场的运作方式。我们不会去杂货店对橘子的价格进行竞价直到其达到某个平衡点。这些事市场已经帮我们完成了。

It’s also worth pointing out the success of indexing doesn’t mean all active management is inherently useless or bad. In fact, Vanguard itself still a ton of money in active funds. Here’s the breakdown of assets in index funds for the firm (also from Bogle’s book):

同样值得指出的是,指数化投资的成功并不意味着所有的主动型基金管理本质上都是无用或糟糕的。事实上,领航集团(Vanguard)本身仍有大量资金投资在较活跃的基金中。以下是该公司投资指数基金的资产细目(这在博格尔的书中也有迹可循):

The trend is easy to spot, but the firm still has more than $1 trillion in actively managed funds. They just happen to manage their active funds using strategies that employ low turnover, long holding periods, and lower than average fees.

从这种趋势很容易看出,该公司的积极管理型基金投资额现在仍超过1万亿美元。他们只是碰巧采用低周转率、长久持有期和低于平均费用的投资策略来管理较活跃的基金。

Wouldn't it be a net positive then for the end investor should the surge in indexing force the asset management industry to adapt?

如果指数化投资浪潮迫使资产管理行业做出调整,这对最终投资者来说难道不是一件好事吗?

Liquidity is not a problem for index funds

流动性对指数基金来说不是问题

One of the big worries is what happens if everyone who has piled into these funds in recent years decides to reverse course and rush to the exits all at once? There will always be investors that panic when markets fall, regardless of the type of fund they're invested in.

其中一大担忧是如果近年来大举投资这些基金的人全都决定改变投资方向,争先恐后地撤回投资并退出指数基金行业,会发生什么?当市场处于低迷时,不管投资者们投资的是哪种基金总会有种恐慌感。

When an index fund investor sells, they’re technically selling their holdings in direct proportion to their weighting in the index. So the market impact is muffled. It's worth repeating: index fund investors are simply owning stocks in the proportion that all active investors own stocks.

当指数基金投资者卖出股票时,从技术上讲,他们卖出的股票与其在指数基金中的权重成正比。因此,市场的影响减弱了。指数基金投资者持有股票的比例,与所有积极投资者持有股票的比例相当,这一点还是值得重复的。

Plus, index funds never lever up your holdings. They never receive a margin call. They don’t put 30% of your holdings in Valeant Pharmaceuticals. And no index fund has ever closed up shop to spend more time with the family.

另外,指数基金从来不会增加你的持有量。他们从未接到追加保证金的通知。他们不会把你30%的股份投入Valeant制药。而且,从来没有指数基金关闭店铺,花更多时间陪伴家人。

Why then would index funds or ETFs be any different than any other fund type or security in that respect?

那么,在这方面,指数基金或etf与其它任何基金类型或证券有何不同呢?

People love attaching a narrative to ups and downs of the markets. Index funds have been the perfect scapegoat in a market that has gone up for 10 years, and pretty much outperformed every other strategy. This won’t last forever. But the next time the market tanks, it will have more to do with investors than index funds.

人们喜欢把一个故事与市场的起起伏伏联系起来。指数基金一直是上涨了10年的市场的完美替罪羊,其表现几乎超过了所有其他投资策略。这不会永远持续下去。但下一次市场下跌时,投资者将比指数基金更有责任。

Do you know what did not cause the Great Depression, or the Japan stock market crash ,or the 1987 crash, or the 1973-74 bear market? Index funds. Index funds also weren’t around for the South Sea Bubble on the 1700s.

你知道什么未对大萧条、日本股市崩盘、1987年股市崩盘以及1973- 1974年熊市的发生造成影响吗?

是指数基金。18世纪的南海股市泡沫也并非因指数基金而致。

Do you know what did cause these historic bubbles and crashes? Human nature.

你知道是什么导致了股市泡沫和崩盘这些历史性问题的出现吗? 是人类的天性。

Could the stock market itself become a bubble yet again? Of course. There will always be bubbles.

股市本身会再次成为泡沫吗? 当然,股票市场将总是伴随着泡沫现象。

Are index funds perfect? No. They give you all of the upside of the stock market. And all of the downside. And, indexes can go nowhere for years on end just like individual stocks. They can become overpriced and underpriced. They own the good stocks and the bad stocks.

指数基金是完美吗?不是。指数基金让你看到股票市场所有好的一面和坏的一面。此外,买指数基金会像个人购买股票一样最后多少年都找不到方向(结合前文的“搭便车”理解,虽然知道家在哪里,却不知车将开往何方。)。股票价值可能被高估或低估。他们买到的股票有好有坏。

But that’s nothing new. That’s the stock market for you.

但这并不新鲜。这就是股票市场。

This passive bubble talk is silly. Wake me up when index funds control 90% of the stock market.

这种被动的泡沫论是愚蠢的。当指数基金控制了90%的股票市场时,叫醒我。

Ben Carlson, CFA is the Director of Institutional Asset Management at Ritholtz Wealth Management.

特许金融分析师本·卡尔森(Ben Carlson)是Ritholtz Wealth Management公司的机构资产管理主管。

More must-read stories from Fortune:

《财富》杂志的更多必读故事:

—Deutsche Bank CEO on European Central Bank: “Negative rates ruin the financial system”

—德意志银行首席执行官对欧洲央行说:“负利率毁了金融业

——9月历来是股市表现最差的月份。2019年是否会延续这一模式?

—Why the next recession may feel very different than 2008

—为什么第二次的经济衰退会与2008年的截然不同

—Here’s what it would take to get to “win-win” with China on trade

—以下是与中国在贸易上实现“双赢”所需要的条件

”Zombie” companies are on the rise–and they could pose a threat to the U.S. economy

——“僵尸”公司正在崛起,他们可能对美国经济威胁
 

Don't miss the daily Term Sheet, Fortune's newsletter on deals and dealmakers.

不要错过《财富》(Fortune)中有关交易和交易者的内部通讯---《每日投资意向书》(daily Term Sheet)。

0 +1
举报
0 条评论
评论不能为空

香草薄荷绿的内容